Judicial Department Cases (Consti 1)

8/19/2019 Judicial Department Cases (Consti 1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/judicial-department-cases-consti-1 1/179

#3. EN BANC

JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA and ROMEO B. IGOT, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ONELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-590 ! Jan"a $ %&, '9!3

DE CASTRO, J.:

This is a petition for mandamus filed by Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada and omeo B. !"ot as a representative suit for andin behalf of those #ho #ish to parti$ipate in the ele$tion irrespe$tive of party affiliation, to $ompel the respondentC%MELEC to $all a spe$ial ele$tion to fill up e&istin" va$an$ies numberin" t#elve '()* in the !nterim Batasan+ambansa. The petition is based on e$tion -')*, Arti$le !!! of the (/01 Constitution #hi$h reads2

')* !n $ase a va$an$y arises in the Batasan" +ambansa ei"hteen months or more before a re"ularele$tion, the Commission on Ele$tion shall $all a spe$ial ele$tion to be held #ithin si&ty '34* daysafter the va$an$y o$$urs to ele$t the Member to serve the une&pired term.

+etitioner Lozada $laims that he is a ta&payer and a bonafide ele$tor of Cebu City and a transient voter of 5uezon City,Metro Manila, #ho desires to run for the position in the Batasan +ambansa6 #hile petitioner omeo B. !"ot alle"es that,as a ta&payer, he has standin" to petition by mandamus the $allin" of a spe$ial ele$tion as mandated by the (/01Constitution. As reason for their petition, petitioners alle"e that they are 7... deeply $on$erned about their duties as$itizens and desirous to uphold the $onstitutional mandate and rule of la# ...6 that they have filed the instant petition ontheir o#n and in behalf of all other 8ilipinos sin$e the sub9e$t matters are of profound and "eneral interest. 7

The respondent C%MELEC, represented by $ounsel, opposes the petition alle"in", substantially, that (* petitioners la$: standin" to file the instant petition for they are not the proper parties to institute the a$tion6 )* this Court has no

9urisdi$tion to entertain this petition6 and 1* e$tion -')*, Arti$le !!! of the (/01 Constitution does not apply to the!nterim Batasan +ambansa.

The petition must be dismiss.

!

As ta&payers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for no#here therein is it alle"ed that ta& money is bein"ille"ally spent. The a$t $omplained of is the ina$tion of the C%MELEC to $all a spe$ial ele$tion, as is alle"edly itsministerial duty under the $onstitutional provision above $ited, and therefore, involves no e&penditure of publi$ funds.!t is only #hen an a$t $omplained of, #hi$h may in$lude a le"islative ena$tment or statute, involves the ille"ale&penditure of publi$ money that the so;$alled ta&payer suit may be allo#ed. ' <hat the $ase at bar see:s is one thatentails e&penditure of publi$ funds #hi$h may be ille"al be$ause it #ould be spent for a purpose that of $allin" aspe$ial ele$tion #hi$h, as #ill be sho#n, has no authority either in the Constitution or a statute.

As voters, neither have petitioners the re=uisite interest or personality to =ualify them to maintain and prose$ute the present petition. The un$hallen"ed rule is that the person #ho impu"ns the validity of a statute must have a personaland substantial interest in the $ase su$h that he has sustained, or #ill sustain, dire$t in9ury as a result of itsenfor$ement. % !n the $ase before >s, the alle"ed ina$tion of the C%MELEC to $all a spe$ial ele$tion to fill;up thee&istin" va$an$ies in the Batasan +ambansa, standin" alone, #ould adversely affe$t only the "eneralized interest of all$itizens. +etitioners? standin" to sue may not be predi$ated upon an interest of the :ind alle"ed here, #hi$h is held in$ommon by all members of the publi$ be$ause of the ne$essarily abstra$t nature of the in9ury supposedly shared by all$itizens. Con$rete in9ury, #hether a$tual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute #hi$h serves in part to$ast it in a form traditionally $apable of 9udi$ial resolution. 3 <hen the asserted harm is a 7"eneralized "rievan$e7shared in substantially e=ual measure by all or a lar"e $lass of $itizens, that harm alone normally does not #arrante&er$ise of 9urisdi$tion. ( As adverted to earlier, petitioners have not demonstrated any permissible personal sta:e, for

petitioner Lozada?s interest as an alle"ed $andidate and as a voter is not suffi$ient to $onfer standin". +etitioner Lozadadoes not only fail to inform the Court of the re"ion he #ants to be a $andidate but ma:es indis$riminate demand that

Page | 1



spe$ial ele$tion be $alled throu"hout the $ountry. Even his plea as a voter is predi$ated on an interest held in $ommon by all members of the publi$ and does not demonstrate any in9ury spe$ially dire$ted to him in parti$ular.

!!

The upreme Court?s 9urisdi$tion over the C%MELEC is only to revie# by $ertiorari the latter?s de$ision, orders orrulin"s. This is as $learly provided in Arti$le @! !C e$tion (( of the Ne# Constitution #hi$h reads2

Any de$ision, order, or rulin" of the Commission may be brou"ht to the upreme Court on $ertiorari by the a""rieved party #ithin thirty days from his re$eipt of a $opy thereof.

There is in this $ase no de$ision, order or rulin" of the C%MELEC #hi$h is sou"ht to be revie#ed by this Court underits $ertiorari 9urisdi$tion as provided for in the afore=uoted provision #hi$h is the only :no#n provision $onferrin"

9urisdi$tion or authority on the upreme Court over the C%MELEC. !t is not alle"ed that the C%MELEC #as as:ed by petitioners to perform its alle"ed duty under the Constitution to $all a spe$ial ele$tion, and that C%MELEC has issuedan order or resolution denyin" su$h petition.

Even from the standpoint of an a$tion for mandamus, #ith the total absen$e of a sho#in" that C%MELEC hasunla#fully ne"le$ted the performan$e of a ministerial duty, or has refused on bein" demanded, to dis$har"e su$h aduty6 and as demonstrated above, it is not sho#n, nor $an it ever be sho#n, that petitioners have a $lear ri"ht to theholdin" of a spe$ial ele$tion. #hi$h is e=ually the $lear and ministerial duty of C%MELEC to respe$t, mandamus #illnot lie. 5 The #rit #ill not issue in doubtful $ases.

!t is obvious that the holdin" of spe$ial ele$tions in several re"ional distri$ts #here va$an$ies e&ist, #ould entail hu"ee&penditure of money. %nly the Batasan +ambansa $an ma:e the ne$essary appropriation for the purpose, and this

po#er of the Batasan +ambansa may neither be sub9e$t to mandamus by the $ourts mu$h less may C%MELEC $ompelthe Batasan to e&er$ise its po#er of appropriation. 8rom the role Batasan +ambansa has to play in the holdin" ofspe$ial ele$tions, #hi$h is to appropriate the funds for the e&penses thereof, it #ould seem that the initiative on thematter must $ome from said body, not the C%MELEC, even #hen the va$an$ies #ould o$$ur in the re"ularnot interim Batasan +ambansa. The po#er to appropriate is the sole and e&$lusive prero"ative of the le"islative body,the e&er$ise of #hi$h may not be $ompelled throu"h a petition for mandamus. <hat is more, the provision of e$tion-')*, Arti$le !!! of the Constitution #as intended to apply to va$an$ies in the re"ular National Assembly, no# Batasan+ambansa, not to the !nterim Batasan +ambansa, as #ill presently be sho#n.

!!!

+erhaps the stron"est reason #hy the afore$ited provision of the Constitution is not intended to apply to the !nterim National Assembly as ori"inally envisioned by the (/01 Constitution is the fa$t that as passed by the ConstitutionalConvention, the !nterim National Assembly #as to be $omposed by the dele"ates to the Constitutional Convention, as#ell as the then in$umbent +resident and i$e;+resident, and the members of the enate and ouse of epresentativesof Con"ress under the (/1- Constitution. <ith su$h number of representatives representin" ea$h $on"ressional distri$t,or a provin$e, not to mention the enators, there #as felt absolutely no need for filin" va$an$ies o$$urrin" in the!nterim National Assembly, $onsiderin" the un$ertainty of the duration of its e&isten$e. <hat #as in the mind of the

Constitutional Convention in providin" for spe$ial ele$tions to fill up va$an$ies is the regular National Assembly, be$ause a provin$e or representative distri$t #ould have only one representative in the said National Assembly.

Even as presently $onstituted #here the representation in the !nterim Batasan +ambansa is re"ional and se$toral, theneed to fill up va$an$ies in the Body is neither imperative nor ur"ent. No distri$t or provin$e #ould ever be left #ithoutrepresentation at all, as to ne$essitate the fillin" up of va$an$ies in the !nterim Batasan +ambansa. There #ould al#ays

be ade=uate representation for every provin$e #hi$h only forms part of a $ertain re"ion, spe$ially $onsiderin" that theBody is only transitory in $hara$ter.

The unmista:able intent of the Constitutional Convention as adverted to is even more positively revealed by the fa$tthat the provision of e$tion -')* of Arti$le !!! of the Ne# Constitution is in the main body of the said Constitution,

Page | 2



not in the transitory provisions in #hi$h all matters relatin" to the !nterim Batasan +ambansa are found. No provisionoutside of Arti$le !!! on the 7Transitory +rovisions7 has referen$e or relevan$e to the !nterim Batasan +ambansa.

Also under the ori"inal provision of the Constitution ' e$tion (, Arti$le @ !!;Transitory +rovisions*, the !nterim National Assembly had only one sin"le o$$asion on #hi$h to $all for an ele$tion, and that is for the ele$tion ofmembers of the re"ular National Assembly. 1äwphï1.ñët The Constitution $ould not have at that time $ontemplated tofill up va$an$ies in the !nterim National Assembly the $omposition of #hi$h, as already demonstrated, #ould not raiseany imperious ne$essity of havin" to $all spe$ial ele$tions for that purpose, be$ause the duration of its e&isten$e #as

neither :no#n or pre;determined. !t $ould be for a period so brief that the time pres$riptions mentioned in e$tion -')*,Arti$le !!! of the Constitution $annot be appli$able.

The fore"oin" observations ma:e it indubitably $lear that the aforementioned provision for $allin" spe$ial ele$tions tofill up va$an$ies apply only to the re"ular Batasan +ambansa. This is evident from the lan"ua"e thereof #hi$h spea:sof a va$an$y in the Batasan +ambansa, 7 #hi$h means the regular Batasan +ambansa as the same #ords 7Batasan+ambansa7 found in all the many other se$tions of Arti$le !!!, undoubtedly refer to the regular Batasan, notthe interim one. A #ord or phrase used in one part of a Constitution is to re$eive the same interpretation #hen used inevery other part, unless it $learly appears, from the $onte&t or other#ise, that a different meanin" should be applied. &

< E E8% E, the petition is hereby dismissed.

% % E E .

Page | 3



# 8. SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 79983 August 10, 1989

BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELO !ENT COR ORATION,petitioner, vs. "ON. CRIS IN C.LARON u$g% o& t'% Cou(t o& )*(st I+st +-% RTC/, B( +-' , D gu + C*t2, AND ! AGRODEVELO !ENT COR ORATION +$ REGINO RAVAN4O, R.,respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

Respondent judge is taken to task in this special civil action for certiorari for having issued the follo ingorders and rit, vi!" #$% order, dated &ugust ', $()*, den+ing the otion to dis iss filed in Civil Case No. D-) ( / #0% order, dated &ugust *,$()*, den+ing the otion for reconsideration of the preceding order/ #1%order of &ugust $0, $()* for the issuance of a rit of preli inar+ injunction/ and #2% rit of preli inar+injunction issued on &ugust $2, $()*.

3he records sho that on 4arch 1,$(*), the Cit+ of Dagupan #Cit+, for short% a arded a lease contract 1 infavor of respondent 5 and 4 &gro-Develop ent Corporation #hereinafter, 5 and 4% over a cit+ lot called the4agsa+sa+ 4arket &rea ith an appro6i ate area of three thousand si6 hundred ninet+-t o #1, (0% s7uare

eters. 8+ reason of 5 and 49s failure to co pl+ ith the conditions of the contract, the Cit+ filed on 4a+ 0', $()0an action to rescind the lease contract ith the Regional 3rial Court of 5angasinan in Dagupan Cit+, 8ranch 2$,and docketed therein as Civil Case No. D- $'*. 5 3his case as decided on :anuar+ $ ,$()' 3in favor of the Cit+on the ;asis of a <:oint 4anifestation< of ;oth parties, dated Septe ;er 0=, $()2. >pon otion of the Cit+, a ritof e6ecution as issued on Septe ;er 0 , $()' 6 ordering the i ediate deliver+ of the possession of thepre ises to the ovant Cit+.

3hereafter, on Nove ;er ', $()', 5 and 4 filed a otion for the reconsideration of the aforesaid decision.?o ever, it as onl+ on &ugust $*,$()* hen the incident as resolved ;+ the court hich set aside thedecision previousl+ rendered on the ground that the joint anifestation on hich it as ;ased is not in the natureof a co pro ise agree ent for the follo ing reasons" #$% the joint anifestation as not signed ;+ the part+plaintiff/ #0% the said pleading did not pra+ that a decision ;e rendered ;ased thereon/ #1% if the parties reall+

intended it to ;e a co pro ise agree ent, the+ should have entitled it as such/ #2% the parties agreed that the joint anifestation is ithout prejudice to the continuance of the case, hich is contrar+ to the ver+ nature of aco pro ise agree ent in that it ter inates the case upon the court9s approval thereof / #'% the joint anifestationdid not specif+ the <proposed ter s and conditions< offered ;+ 5 and 4, hence it cannot ;e a valid ;asis for a

judg ent on co pro ise hich re7uires that the ter s and conditions ;e spelled out clearl+ in order that thecourt a+ deter ine hether the+ are in accordance ith la , pu;lic polic+, pu;lic order, and good custo s/ and# % the alleged proposals are su;ject to the revie of the proper govern ent agencies, hich is not allo ed in a

judg ent on co pro ise herein onl+ the court a+ deter ine the legalit+ thereof. 7 3he Cit+9s otion for thereconsideration of said resolution hich set aside the decision rendered in Civil Case No. D- $'* as denied ;+said trial court in an order dated Octo;er 0 , $()*. 8

It appears, ho ever, that on &pril 0=, $()*, during the pendenc+ of the resolution on the otion for

reconsideration filed ;+ 5 and 4 in Civil Case No. D- $'*, the Sangguniang 5anlungsod of the Cit+ ofDagupan adopted Resolution No. $2 0-)* <&uthori!ing the Cit+ 4a+or, ?onora;le @i;erate @l. Re+na, Sr., toEnter Into a Contract of @ease ith 8ugna+ Construction and Develop ent Corporation over that 5arcel of@ot o ned ;+ the Cit+ of Dagupan. 9 On &pril 0*, $()*, pursuant to said resolution, herein petitioner entered intoa contract of lease 10 ith the Cit+ over the 4agsa+sa+ 4arket &rea, herein petitioner agreed to finance,esta;lish, construct, develop, anage, operate, aintain, control and supervise a co ercial center and a

odern pu;lic arket ;uilding, pa+ing a onthl+ rental of eight pesos #5).==% per s7uare eter, for a period oft ent+ #0=% +ears to ;egin fro the date hen the stallholders in the area afore entioned shall ;e relocated, iththe o;ligation to turn over, ithout de and, the entire arket ;uilding and all attached appurtenances to thelessor Cit+ upon the e6piration of the lease period. >pon the fulfill ent of the condition for the co ence ent ofthe ter of the lease, i.e., the relocation of the stallholders in the area, petitioner i ediatel+ started itsconstruction ork.

Page | 4



On :une $', $()*, 5 and 4, through its counsel, herein private respondent Regino R. Ravan!o, :r., filed anaction 11 for <Injunction ith 5ra+er for 5reli inar+ Injunction and 3e porar+ Restraining Order, &nnul ent ofContract, and Da ages< against the Cit+, its officials and herein petitioner, hich case as docketed as CivilCase No. D-) 2 and assigned to 8ranch 21 of the Regional 3rial Court in Dagupan Cit+. In its co plaint, 5 and4 averred that inas uch as Civil Case No. D- $'* as still pending, its lease contract ith the Cit+ continued toe6ist, hence the lease contract e6ecuted ;+ the Cit+ ith herein petitioner is allegedl+ null and void ab initio andan ultra vires act. 5 and 4 conse7uentl+ pra+ed that petitioner ;e enjoined fro continuing ith the constructionof the arket ;uilding. & te porar+ restraining order 15 initiall+ issued ;+ said 8ranch 21 on :une $(, $()* assu;se7uentl+ dissolved in its order dated :une 1=, $()*, 13 on the ground that no great or irrepara;le injur+ ouldresult to the therein applicant 5 and 4 if no restraining order ill ;e issued. 3hereafter, the defendants thereinfiled their respective pleadings.

On :ul+ $*, $()*, private respondent Regino R. Ravan!o, :r., professedl+ in his capacit+ as a resident andta6pa+er of Dagupan Cit+, filed ith the Regional 3rial Court in Dagupan Cit+ the present action for<Injunction ith 5reli inar+ Injunction and 3e porar+ Restraining Order and Da ages< against the Cit+ ofDagupan, the Cit+ 4a+or and herein petitioner hich as docketed as Civil Case No. D-) ( , and, this ti e,

as assigned to 8ranch 22 of said court presided over ;+ herein respondent judge. 1 &s part+ plaintiff thereinand, on the ;asis of the ver+ sa e facts alleged in Civil Case No. D-) 2, herein private respondent Ravan!oattacked the legalit+ of the contract of lease entered into ;et een the Cit+ and petitioner, alleging thirt+ #1=%reasons in his co plaint h+ the contract should ;e declared null and void, and pra+ed for the issuance of a ritof injunction directing petitioner to desist fro continuing ith the 7uestioned construction. On :ul+ 02, $ ()*,respondent judge issued a restraining order 16 enjoining herein petitioner fro continuing ith the construction ofthe 4agsa+sa+ 4arket ;uilding.

On :ul+ 0),$()*, the Cit+ and its &cting 4a+or filed a otion to dis iss 1 on the grounds that therein plaintiffRavan!o is not the real part+ in interest/ the co plaint states no cause of action/ there is another action #CivilCase No. D-) 2% pending ;et een the sa e parties involving the sa e su;ject atter, issues, purpose andpra+er/ and, in effect, there as foru -shopping.

On &ugust ',$()*, respondent judge issued an order 17 den+ing the otion to dis iss. 3he otion forreconsideration, 18 filed ;+ the Cit+ as like ise denied in an order dated &ugust *,$()*. 19

3hereafter, respondent judge granted the filing of a ;ond ;+ respondent Ravan!o in the a ount of onehundred thousand pesos #5l==,===.==%, in his order of &ugust $0, $()* 50 as a conse7uence of hich a rit ofpreli inar+ injunction 51 as issued on &ugust $2,$()*.

?ence, this petition.

Ae have recast, for ;revit+, the follo ing deter inative issues raised ;+ petitioner for resolution, vi!"

$. Ahether or not the respondent judge co itted grave a;use of discretion, hen, insteadof dis issing the alleged ta6pa+er9s suit #Civil Case No. D-) ( %, he instead issued the ritof preli inar+ injunction pra+ed for ;+ respondent Ravan!o, in spite of the clear pendenc+ ofanother action ;et een the sa e parties for the sa e cause/

0. Ahether or not the respondent judge co itted a grave a;use of discretion hen hedenied the otion to dis iss Civil Case No. D-) ( , ;+ refusing to recogni!e that the hereinrespondent Ravan!o does not have an+ personalit+ to file a ta6pa+er9s suit hence he has nocause of action against the defendants in the court a quo / and

1. Ahether or not under the facts of this case the private respondents ere guilt+ of foru -shopping.

Ae find for the petitioner.

Page | 5



3his petition is a proper recourse fro the assailed orders of respondent judge. Ahile generall+ an orderden+ing a otion to dis iss is interlocutor+ and not appeala;le, here such denial as issued ith gravea;use of discretion or is ithout or in e6cess of jurisdiction, the e6traordinar+ rits of certiorari andprohi;ition ill lie. 55

It is readil+ apparent fro ajudicious perusal and evaluation of the pleadings filed in Civil Case No. D-) (that dul+ raised in issue therein as the pendenc+ of another case ;et een the sa e parties for the sa ecause/ that in said Civil Case No. D-) ( , therein plaintiff Ravan!o as neither a real part+ in interest nor

could he have validl+ aintained said case as a so-called ta6pa+er9s suit/ and that these considerations, intande , virtuall+ dictated that said case should have ;een dis issed outright.

On the pendenc+ of another action ;et een the sa e parties for the sa e cause, or litis pendentia as aground for dis issal, there ust ;e ;et een the action under consideration and the other action #$% identit+of the parties or at least such as represent the sa e interest in ;oth actions, #0% identit+ of the rightsasserted and pra+ed for, the relief ;eing founded on the sa e facts, #1% the identit+ in ;oth cases is suchthat the judg ent hich a+ ;e rendered in the pending case, regardless of hich part+ is successful,

ould a ount to res judicata in the other case. 53 3his ground is also referred to as lis pendens or auter action pendant. 5

In the case at ;ar, hile it a+ superficiall+ appear that there are t o different plaintiffs in the prior case and

in the present action, na el+, 5 and 4 in Civil Case No. D-) 2 and Regino R. Ravan!o, :r. in Civil CaseNo. D-) ( , there can ;e no dispute that ;oth represent the sa e interest. It is ad itted that Ravan!o is thecounsel of record of 5 and 4 in Civil Case No. D-) 2. &s seen earlier, after the restraining order in saidcase as lifted and 5 and 49s pra+er for preli inar+ injunction to restrain herein petitioner fro continuing

ith the construction of the arket ;uilding in the aforesaid case as not acted upon, Ravan!o personall+applied for another te porar+ restraining order and another rit of preli inar+ injunction to enjoin the ver+sa e act of construction, this ti e under the guise of a ta6pa+er suit ith hi self as the plaintiff in Case No.D-) ( . It is all too ludicrousl+ transparent and readil+ apparent that respondent Ravan!o erel+ sought inanother ;ranch of the sa e court, figurativel+ using the hat of a ta6pa+er, hat he failed to o;tained in one;ranch, under the hat of a representing counsel. ?is allegation that he has no interest in co on

hatsoever ith 5 and 4 is an affront to the credulit+ and patience of this Court. ?e even ;elied his o nisrepresentation in the present proceedings ;efore this Court herein he appeared and filed co on

pleadings for and ;ehalf of hi self and 5 and 4.

5 and 4, through its said counsel, respondent Ravan!o, alleged in Civil Case No. D-) 2 that it is theholder of the previous lease a ard for the 4agsa+sa+ 4arket/ that on 4a+ 0', $()0, the Cit+ of Dagupanfiled a suit to rescind such contract, the case having ;een docketed as Civil Case No. D- $'* in 8ranch 2$of the Regional 3rial Court in Dagupan Cit+/ that a decision as pro ulgated in the said case on :anuar+$ , $()' ;ut it filed a otion to set aside such decision on Nove ;er ', $()', hich otion had not ;eenresolved/ that on &pril 0=,$()*, the Sangguniang 5anlungsod of Dagupan Cit+ passed Resolution No. $2 0-)* authori!ing Cit+ 4a+or @i;erato @l. Re+na to enter into a contract of lease over the 4agsa+sa+ 4arket

ith petitioner 8ugna+ Construction and Develop ent Corporation and on &pril 0*, $()* the Cit+represented ;+ 4a+or Re+na, and petitioner entered into a contract of lease over the 4agsa+sa+ 4arket/

that inas uch as Civil Case No. D- $'* as still pending, the previous lease contract in favor of 5 and 4as still su;sisting, hence the Cit+ could not lease the pre ises to another part+/ that the enact ent ofResolution No. $2 0-)*, the e6ecution of the lease contract ith petitioner corporation and the construction;+ petitioner of the co ercial center all constitute an un arranted and a;usive e6ercise of po er thatdeprives 5 and 4 of its propert+ ithout due process and is an ultra vires act. 3hese are ;asicall+ the sa eallegations raised in Civil Case No. D-) ( ith respondent Ravan!o as plaintiff.

3here is regretta;le vacuit+ in respondent Ravan!o9s insistence that he is suing for <Injunction ith 5ra+erfor 5reli inar+ Injunction and 3e porar+ Restraining Order< hereas 5 and 49s action is for <Injunction ith5ra+er for 5reli inar+ Injunction, &nnul ent of Contract and 3e porar+ Restraining Order< hich actions,so he clai s, seek distinct and different reliefs. Indeed, it is e pt+ ver;iage to den+ that in Case No. D-) (

Page | 6



Ravan!o is actuall+ asking for the declaration of the nullit+ of the lease contract e6ecuted ;+ the Cit+ andpetitioner, hich is also hat is pra+ed for ;+ 5 and 4 in Case No. D-) 2.

>ndenia;l+, hatever judg ent a+ ;e rendered in Case No. D-) 2 ill necessaril+ constitute res judicata in Case No. D-) ( . &nd, it is too entrenched a rule ;rooking no dissent that a part+ cannot, ;+var+ing the for of action or adopting a different ethod of presenting his case, escape theation of theprinciple that one and the sa e cause of action shall not ;e t ice litigated. 56

3he trial court, in taking cogni!ance of the purported ta6pa+er9s suit, declared that respondent Ravan!o hasthe legal capacit+ to sue since his interest as a ta6pa+er is directl+ affected ;+ the alleged ultra vires act ofthe Cit+ of Dagupan, invoking the doctrine enunciated in City Council of Cebu City, etc., et al. vs. Carlos J.Cuizon etc., et al .,5 to it"

5laintiffs9 right and legal interest as ta6pa+ers to file the suit ;elo and seek judicialassistance to prevent hat the+ ;elieve to ;e an atte pt to unla full+ dis;urse pu;lic fundsof the cit+ and to contest the e6penditure of pu;lic funds under contracts and co it ents

ith defendant ;ank and 3ropical hich the+ assert to have ;een entered into ;+ the a+orithout legal authorit+ and against the e6press prohi;ition of la have long received the

Court9s sanction and recognition. In Gonzales vs. Hechanova , the Court through the noChief :ustice dis issed the challenge against the sufficienc+ of therein petitioner9s interest to

file the action, stating that 9since the purchase of said co odit+ ill have to ;e effected ithpu;lic funds ainl+ raised ;+ ta6ation, and as a rice producer and lando ner petitioner ustnecessaril+ ;e a ta6pa+er, it follo s that he has sufficient personalit+ and interest to seek

judicial assistance ith a vie to restraining hat he ;elieves to ;e an atte pt to unla full+dis;urse said funds.

Contraril+, it thus results that the trial court9s reliance is self-defeating since the ver+ doctrine cited holds thatonl+ hen the act co plained of directl+ involves an illegal dis;urse ent of pu;lic funds raised ;+ ta6ation

in the ta6pa+er9s suit ;e allo ed. 3he essence of a ta6pa+er9s right to institute such an action hinges on thee6istence of that re7uisite pecuniar+ or onetar+ interest.

Ae accordingl+ held in Gonzales vs. Marcos , etc., et al . 57 that"

It a+ not ;e a iss though to consider ;riefl+ ;oth the procedural and su;stantive groundsthat led to the lo er court9s order of dis issal. It as therein pointed out as 9one ore validreason9 h+ such an outco e as unavoida;le that the funds ad inistered ;+ the 5residentof the 5hilippines ca e fro donations #and% contri;utions #not% ;+ ta6ation. &ccordingl+,there as that a;sence of the re7uisite pecuniar+ or onetar+ interest.9. . . It is onl+ to akeclear that petitioner, judged ;+ orthodo6 legal learning, has not satisfied the ele entalre7uisite for a ta6pa+er9s suit. ...

O;jections to a ta6pa+er9s suit for lack of sufficient personalit+ standing or interest are procedural atters.Considering the i portance to the pu;lic of a suit assailing the constitutionalit+ of a ta6 la , and in keeping

ith the Court9s dut+, speciall+ e6plicated in the $()* Constitution, to deter ine hether or not the other;ranches of the Bovern ent have kept the selves ithin the li its of the Constitution and the la s and thatthe+ have not a;used the discretion given to the , the Supre e Court a+ ;rush aside technicalities ofprocedure and take cogni!ance of the suit. 58

?o ever, for the a;ove rule to appl+, it is e6igent that the ta6pa+er-plaintiff sufficientl+ sho that he ould ;e;enefited or injured ;+ the judg ent or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real part+ in interest. 59 8efore hecan invoke the po er of judicial revie , he ust specificall+ prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing theillegal e6penditure of one+ raised ;+ ta6ation 30 and that he ig sustain a direct injur+ as a result of theenforce ent of the 7uestioned statute or contract. 31 It is not sufficient that he has erel+ a general interestco on to an e ;ers of the pu;lic. 35

Page | 7



On its face, and there is no evidence to the contrar+, the lease contract entered into ;et een petitioner andthe Cit+ sho s that no pu;lic funds have ;een or ill ;e used in the construction of the arket ;uilding. 3heter s of the contract reveal that petitioner shall finance the project, the capital invest ent to ;e recoveredfro the rental fees due fro the stallholders. urther ore, petitioner undertook, at its o n e6pense, toinsure the ;uilding, to have the site cleared for construction, and to hire personnel necessar+ to preventunfair co petition to its stallholders. It as like ise agreed that suits arising fro and in connection ithsaid construction shall ;e at the e6pense of petitioner ithout right of rei ;urse ent. inall+, the ;uildingshall ;e turned over at the end of the lease period to the Cit+ of Dagupan as its e6clusive o ner, also

ithout right of rei ;urse ent. No dis;urse ent of pu;lic funds, legal or other ise, ;eing involved in thechallenged transaction, the locus stand clai ed ;+ plaintiff in Civil Case No. D-) ( is non-e6istent.

oru -shopping, an act of alpractice, is proscri;ed and conde ned as trifling ith the courts and a;usingtheir processes. It is i proper conduct that degrades the ad inistration of justice. 3he rule has ;eenfor ali!ed in 5aragraph $* of the Interi Rules and Buidelines issued ;+ this Court on :anuar+ $$, $()1, inconnection ith the i ple entation of the :udiciar+ Reorgani!ation &ct. 3hus, said 5aragraph $* providesthat no petition a+ ;e filed in the then Inter ediate &ppellate Court, no the Court of &ppeals <if anothersi ilar petition has ;een filed or is still pending in the Supre e Court9 and vice-versa. 3he Rule ordains that<#a% violation of the rule shall constitute a conte pt of court and shall ;e a cause for the su ar+ dis issalof ;oth petitions, ithout prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or part+concerned. 33

3his rule has ;een e7uall+ applied in the recent case of Limpin, Jr., et al. vs. ntermediate !ppellate Court,et al .,3 here the part+ having filed an action in one ;ranch of the regional trial court shops for the sa ere edies of a restraining order and a rit of preli inar+ injunction in another ;ranch of the sa e court. Ae ruledtherein that"

So, too, hat has thus tar ;een said ore than a pl+ de onstrates Sar iento9s and 8asa9sact of foru shopping. ?aving failed to o;tain the reliefs to hich the+ ere not entitled inthe first place fro the <Solano Court,< the Court of &ppeals, and the Supre e Court, the+su;se7uentl+ instituted t o #0% actions in the 98eltran Court9 for the sa e purpose, violatingin the process the ruling against splitting causes of action. 3he sanction is inescapa;le"dis issal of ;oth actions, for gross a;use of judicial processes.

3hat ;oth actions ought to ;e dis issed is further ;olstered ;+ the fact that 8ranch 21 hearing Civil CaseNo. D-) 2 also acted on the ;elief that the first action filed ;+ the Cit+ against 5 and 4, Civil Case No. D-

$'*, constitutes a prejudicial 7uestion to Civil Case No. D-) 2 as stated in its resolution of :une 1=,$()*"

.....It is the considered opinion of this Court that the atter of Restraining Order, Arit of5reli inar+ Injunction and other for s of redress to the plaintiff could ;e ;etter treated uponthe result of the #sic% Civil Case No. D- $'* ;ecause should the a;ove- entioned ;eulti atel+ decided in favor of the Cit+ of Dagupan, all atters to ;e treated in the instantcase ill ;eco e oot and acade ic. In the event, ho ever, that the 5 and 4 &groDevelop ent prevailed in that case then a+ ;e so e of the atter #sic% raised in this case

should have ;een treated in that afore entioned case. Or so e re edies are availa;le tothe prevailing part+.

Since the Court ;elieves that there is so e sort of a prejudicial 7uestion involved in CivilCase No. D- $'*, hich a+ affect this case to a certain e6tent, then it ould not ;e naiveto discreetl+ ait for the final deter ination of Civil Case No. D- $'* and therefore theparties here should ;e treated in their previous positions status 7uo anti "sic# bellum. 36

?ence, as earlier seen, said ;ranch dissolved the restraining order it had previousl+ issued and does notappear to have taken an+ further action in the case ;efore it. On all the foregoing considerations, thedis issal of ;oth Civil Cases Nos. D-) 2 and D-) ( is definitel+ in order.

Page | 8



Respondent :udge @aron in issuing the rit of preli inar+ injunction, supposedl+ relied on the doctrineenunciated in $abado, et al. vs. Cristina Gonzales, nc., et al , 3 that a judge of a ;ranch of the for er court offirst instance, no the regional trial court, has jurisdiction to issue a rit of preli inar+ injunction in a case pendingin that ;ranch, although a si ilar rit had ;een denied ;+ another ;ranch of the sa e court. 3his is a speciousinvocation since in said case the parties involved did not engage in foru shopping ;+ filing t o cases ;ased onthe sa e cause of action in t o different ;ranches of the sa e court. Involved therein ere t o actions ith t odifferent causes of action, the first ;eing usurpation of real rights ;+ the defendants therein and the second ;asedon violations of a leasehold grant ;+ the plaintiff in the first action. In the present controvers+, as alread+de onstrated, the sa e reliefs of a restraining order and preli inar+ injunction ere sought apparentl+ in t oseparate cases hich, ho ever, are in a procedural situation of litis pendentia as to each other, ith the sa ecause of action and the other ele ents thereof.

?o ever, e7uita;le considerations and the practical desira;ilit+ of and necessit+ for the resolution of theissues raised in ;oth Civil Cases Nos. D-) 2 and D-) ( persuade >s that the dis issal thereof shall ;e

ithout prejudice to hatever principal or ancillar+ re edies private respondents a+ dee proper toprotect their rights ;+ filing or availing thereof in Civil Case No. D- $'*, or to ;e consolidated therein or

jointl+ decided there ith, as the proper foru for the adjudication of all the respective rights and lia;ilities ofthe parties concerned. Conse7uentl+, and considering the pu;lic purpose of the su;ject atter in litigation,the presiding judge of 8ranch 2$ is here;+ directed to act ith all practica;le dispatch to ards the earl+ and

judicious ter ination of the proceedings in Civil Case No. D- $'* pending therein and all such otherincidents as a+ hereafter ;e filed or involved in said case for the co plete deter ination thereof.

5rivate respondent Regino R. Ravan!o :r. is here;+ repri anded for engaging in conduct e7uivalent toforu shopping ith a stern arning that a repetition of the sa e or si ilar acts in the future ill ;e severel+dealt ith. or per itting such a state of affairs to take place in his court, pu;lic respondent :udge Crispin C.@aron is here;+ strictl+ ad onished to ;e ore perceptive and circu spect in his judicial appreciation andconduct of cases assigned to hi , ith the sa e arning in the event of a repetition of his actuations hereinco plained of.

A?ERE ORE, the Court here;+"

$. ORDERS the dis issal of Civil Cases Nos. D-) 2 and D-) ( in 8ranches 21 and 22, respectivel+, of

the Regional 3rial Court, Dagupan Cit+, ithout prejudice to the filing or avail ent of such re edies theparties a+ dee proper in Civil Case No. D- $'* in 8ranch 2$ of the sa e court/

0. DISSO@VES the rit of preli inar+ injunction issued in the aforesaid Civil Case No. D-) ( / and

1. DIREC3S presiding judge of 8ranch 2$ of the aforesaid court to e6pedite and ter inate the trial andadjudication of Civil Case No. D- $ '* and all other re edies and incidents that the parties a+ properl+ fileand consolidate for deter ination therein.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 9



# 9 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. L 655 6 +u (2 55, 1980

ATRICIO DU!LAO, RO!EO B. IGOT, +$ AL)REDO SALA ANTAN, R., petitioners, vs. CO!!ISSIONON ELECTIONS,respondent.

!ELENCIO "ERRERA, J:

3his is a 5etition for 5rohi;ition ith 5reli inar+ Injunction and or Restraining Order filed ;+ petitioners, intheir o n ;ehalf and all others allegedl+ si ilarl+ situated, seeking to enjoin respondent Co ission onElections #CO4E@EC% fro i ple enting certain provisions of 8atas 5a ;ansa 8ig. '$, '0, and '1 for;eing unconstitutional.

3he 5etition alleges that petitioner, 5atricio Du lao, is a for er Bovernor of Nueva Vi!ca+a, ho has filedhis certificate of candidac+ for said position of Bovernor in the forthco ing elections of :anuar+ 1=, $()=.5etitioner, Ro eo 8. Igot, is a ta6pa+er, a 7ualified voter and a e ;er of the 8ar ho, as such, has takenhis oath to support the Constitution and o;e+ the la s of the land. 5etitioner, &lfredo Salapantan, :r., is alsoa ta6pa+er, a 7ualified voter, and a resident of San 4iguel, Iloilo.

5etitioner Du lao specificall+ 7uestions the constitutionalit+ of section 2 of 8atas 5a ;ansa 8lg. '0 asdiscri inator+ and contrar+ to the e7ual protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. SaidSection 2 provides"

Sec. 2. Special Dis7ualification in addition to violation of section $= of &rt. I I-C of theConstitution and dis7ualification entioned in e6isting la s, hich are here;+ declared asdis7ualification for an+ of the elective officials enu erated in section $ hereof.

!ny retired elective provincial city or municipal official %ho has received payment of theretirement benefits to %hich he is entitled under the la%, and %ho shall have been &,' yearsof a(e at the commencement of the term of office to %hich he see)s to be elected shall notbe qualified to run for the same elective local office from %hich he has retired #E phasissupplied%

5etitioner Du lao alleges that the aforecited provision is directed insidiousl+ against hi , and that theclassification provided therein is ;ased on <purel+ ar;itrar+ grounds and, therefore, class legislation.<

or their part, petitioners igot and Salapantan, :r. assail the validit+ of the follo ing statutor+ provisions"

Sec *. 3er s of Office F >nless sooner re oved for cause, all local elective officialshereina;ove entioned shall hold office for a ter of si6 # % +ears, hich shall co ence onthe first 4onda+ of 4arch $()=.

.... #8atas 5a ;ansa 8lg. '$% Sec. 2.

Sec. 2. ...

&n+ person ho has co itted an+ act of dislo+alt+ to the State, including acts a ounting tosu;version, insurrection, re;ellion or other si ilar cri es, shall not ;e 7ualified to ;e acandidate for an+ of the offices covered ;+ this &ct, or to participate in an+ partisan politicalactivit+ therein"

Page | 10



provided that a jud(ment of conviction for any of the aforementioned crimes shall beconclusive evidence of such fact and

the filin( of char(es for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunalafter preliminary investi(ation shall be prima fascie evidence of such fact.

... #8atas 5a ;ansa 8ig. '0% #5aragraphing and E phasis supplied%.

Section $. Election of certain @ocal Officials F ... 3he election shall ;e held on :anuar+ 1=,$()=. #8atas 5a ;ansa, 8lg. '0%

Section . Election and Ca paign 5eriod F 3he election period shall ;e fi6ed ;+ theCo ission on Elections in accordance ith Section , &rt. II-C of the Constitution. 3heperiod of ca paign shall co ence on Dece ;er 0(, $(*( and ter inate on :anuar+ 0),$()=. # ibid .%

In addition to the a;ove-cited provisions, petitioners Igot and Salapantan, :r. also 7uestion the accreditationof so e political parties ;+ respondent CO4E@EC, as authori!ed ;+ 8atas 5a ;ansa 8lg. '1, on theground that it is contrar+ to section (#$%&rt. IIC of the Constitution, hich provides that a <;ona fidecandidate for an+ pu;lic office shall ;e it. fro an+ for of harass ent and discri ination. <3he 7uestion ofaccreditation ill not ;e taken up in this case ;ut in that of *acalso, et als. vs. C+M L C et als . No. @-'0010% here the issue has ;een s7uarel+ raised,

5etitioners then pra+ that the statutor+ provisions the+ have challenged ;e declared null and void for ;eingviolative of the Constitution.

I . -he procedural !spect

&t the outset, it should ;e stated that this 5etition suffers fro ;asic procedural infir ities, hence,traditionall+ unaccepta;le for judicial resolution. or one, there is a isjoinder of parties and actions.5etitioner Du lao9s interest is alien to that of petitioners Igot and Salapantan 5etitioner Du lao does not

join petitioners Igot and Salapantan in the ;urden of their co plaint, nor do the latter join Du lao in his. 3herespectivel+ contest co pletel+ different statutor+ provisions. 5etitioner Du lao has joined this suit in hisindividual capacit+ as a candidate. 3he action of petitioners Igot and Salapantan is ore in the nature of ata6pa+er9s suit. &lthough petitioners plead nine constraints as the reason of their joint 5etition, it ould havere7uired onl+ a odicu ore of effort tor petitioner Du lao, on one hand said petitioners lgot andSalapantan, on the other, to have filed separate suits, in the interest of orderl+ procedure.

or another, there are standards that have to ;e follo ed inthe e6ercise of the function of judicial revie ,na el+ #$% the e6istence of an appropriate case", #0% an interest personal and su;stantial ;+ the part+ raisingthe constitutional 7uestion" #1% the plea that the function ;e e6ercised at the earliest opportunit+ and #2% thenecessit+ that the constiutional 7uestion ;e passed upon in order to decide the case #5eople vs. Vera '5hil. ' G$(1*H%.

It a+ ;e conceded that the third re7uisite has ;een co plied ith, hich is, that the parties have raised theissue of constitutionalit+ earl+ enough in their pleadings.

3his 5etition, ho ever, has fallen far short of the other three criteria.

&. &ctual case and controvers+.

It is ;asic that the po er of judicial revie is li ited to the deter ination of actual cases and controversies.

Page | 11



5etitioner Du lao assails the constitutionalit+ of the first paragraph of section 2 of 8atas 5a ;ansa 8lg. '0,7uoted earlier, as ;eing contrar+ to the e7ual protection clause guaranteed ;+ the Constitution, and seeks toprohi;it respondent CO4E@EC fro i ple enting said provision. et, Du lao has not ;een adversel+affected ;+ the application of that provision. No petition seeking Du lao9s dis7ualification has ;een filed;efore the CO4E@EC. 3here is no ruling of that constitutional ;od+ on the atter, hich this Court is ;eingasked to revie on Certiorari. ?is is a 7uestion posed in the a;stract, a h+pothetical issue, and in effect, apetition for an advisor+ opinion fro this Court to ;e rendered ithout the ;enefit of a detailed factual record5etitioner Du lao9s case is clearl+ ithin the pri ar+ jurisdiction #see concurring Opinion of no Chief:ustice ernando in 5eralta vs. Co elec, )0 SCR& 1=, ( G$(*)H% of respondent CO4E@EC as provided forin section 0, &rt. II-C, for the Constitution the pertinent portion of hich reads"

<Section 0. 3he Co ission on Elections shall have the follo ing po er and functions"

$% 666

0% 8e the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of alle ;ers of the National &sse ;l+ and elective provincial and cit+ officials. #E phasis

supplied%

3he afore7uoted provision ust also ;e related to section $$ of &rt. II-C, hich provides"

Section $$. &n+ decision, order, or ruling of the Co ission a+ ;e ;rought to the Supre eCourt on certiorari ;+ the aggrieved part+ ithin thirt+ da+s fro his receipt of a cop+ thereof.

8. roper party.

3he long-standing rule has ;een that <the person ho i pugns the validit+ of a statute ust have a personaland su;stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or ill sustain, direct injur+ as a result of itsenforce ent< #5eople vs. Vera, supra %.

In the case of petitioners Igot and Salapantan, it as onl+ during the hearing, not in their 5etition, that Igot is

said to ;e a candidate for Councilor. Even then, it cannot ;e denied that neither one has ;een convicted norcharged ith acts of dislo+alt+ to the State, nor dis7ualified fro ;eing candidates for local electivepositions. Neither one of the has ;een calle ed to have ;een adversel+ affected ;+ the operation of thestatutor+ provisions the+ assail as unconstitutional 3heirs is a generated grievance. 3he+ have no personalnor su;stantial interest at stake. In the a;sence of an+ litigate interest, the+ can clai no locus standi inseeking judicial redress.

It is true that petitioners Igot and Salapantan have instituted this case as a ta6pa+er9s suit, and that the ruleenunciated in 5eople vs. Vera, a;ove stated, has ;een rela6ed in 5ascual vs. 3he Secretar+ of 5u;lic Aorks#$$= 5hil. 11$ G$( =H, thus"

... it is ell settled that the validit+ of a statute a+ ;e contested onl+ ;+ one ho ill sustaina direct injur+ in conse7uence of its enforce ent. et, there are an+ decisions nullif+ing atthe instance of ta6pa+ers, la s providing for the dis;urse ent of pu;lic funds, upon thetheor+ that <the e6penditure of pu;lic funds, ;+ an officer of the State for the purpose ofad inistering an unconstitutional act constitutes a isapplication of such funds,< hich a+;e enjoined at the re7uest of a ta6pa+er.

In the sa e vein, it has ;een held"

In the deter ination of the degree of interest essential to give the re7uisite standing to attackthe constitutionalit+ of a statute, the general rule is that not onl+ persons individuall+ affected,;ut also ta6pa+ers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal e6penditure of one+s

Page | 12



raised ;+ ta6ation and the+ a+, therefore, 7uestion the constitutionalit+ of statutes re7uiringe6penditure of pu;lic one+s. #5hilippine Constitution &ssociation, Inc., et als., vs. Bi ene!,et als., $' SCR& 2*( G$( 'H%.

?o ever, the statutor+ provisions 7uestioned in this case, na el+, sec. *, 85 8lg. '$, and sections 2, $, and 85 8lg. '0, do not directl+ involve the dis;urse ent of pu;lic funds. Ahile, concededl+, the elections to ;e

held involve the e6penditure of pu;lic one+s, no here in their 5etition do said petitioners allege that theirta6 one+ is <;eing e6tracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against a;uses of

legislative po er< # last v. Cohen, 1(0 >.S., )1 G$( =H%, or that there is a isapplication of such funds ;+respondent CO4E@EC #see 5ascual vs. Secretar+ of 5u;lic Aorks, $$= 5hil. 11$ G$( =H%, or that pu;licone+ is ;eing deflected to an+ i proper purpose. Neither do petitioners seek to restrain respondent froasting pu;lic funds through the enforce ent of an invalid or unconstitutional la . #5hilippine Constitution

&ssociation vs. 4atha+, $) SCR& 1== G$( H%, citing hilippine Constitution !ssociation vs. Gimenez, $'SCR& 2*( G$( 'H%. 8esides, the institution of a ta6pa+er9s suit, per se is no assurance of judicial revie . &sheld ;+ this Court in -an vs. Macapa(al #21 SCR& ** G$(*0H%, speaking through our present Chief :ustice,this Court is vested ith discretion as to hether or not a ta6pa+er9s suit should ;e entertained.

C. /navoidability of constitutional question.

&gain upon the authorit+ of eople vs. 0era , <it is a ellsettled rule that the constitutionalit+ of an act of the

legislature ill not ;e deter ined ;+ the courts unless that 7uestion is properl+ raised and presented inappropriate cases and is necessar+ to a deter ination of the case/ i.e., the issue of constitutionalit+ ust ;ethe ver+ lis ota presented.<

Ae have alread+ stated that, ;+ the standards set forth in eople vs. 0era, the present is not an <appropriatecase< for either petitioner Du lao or for petitioners Igot and Salapantan. 3he+ are actuall+ ithout cause ofaction. It follo s that the necessit+ for resolving the issue of constitutionalit+ is a;sent, and proceduralregularit+ ould re7uire that this suit ;e dis issed.

II. -he substantive vie%point.

Ae have resolved, ho ever, to rule s7uarel+ on t o of the challenged provisions, the Courts not ;eingentirel+ ithout discretion in the atter. 3hus, adherence to the strict procedural standard as rela6edin -inio vs. Mina #0 SCR& '$0 G$( )H%/ du vs. ricta #1' SCR& 2)$ G$(*=H%/ and in Gonzalez vs.Comelec #0* SCR& )1' G$( (H%, the Opinion in the 3inio and Bon!ale! cases having ;een penned ;+ ourpresent Chief :ustice. 3he reasons hich have i pelled us are the para ount pu;lic interest involved andthe pro6i it+ of the elections hich ill ;e held onl+ a fe da+s hence.

5etitioner Du lao9s contention that section 2 of 85 8lg. '0 is discri inator+ against hi personall+ is ;elied;+ the fact that several petitions for the dis7ualification of other candidates for local positions ;ased on thechallenged provision have alread+ ;een filed ith the CO4E@EC #as listed in p. $', respondent9sCo ent%. 3his tellingl+ overthro s Du lao9s contention of intentional or purposeful discri ination.

3he assertion that Section 2 of 85 8lg. '0 is contrar+ to the safer guard of e7ual protection is neither elltaken. 3he constitutional guarantee of e7ual protection of the la s is su;ject to rational classification. If thegroupings are ;ased on reasona;le and real differentiations, one class can ;e treated and regulateddifferentl+ fro another class. or purposes of pu;lic service, e plo+ees ' +ears of age, have ;een validl+classified differentl+ fro +ounger e plo+ees. E plo+ees attaining that age are su;ject to co pulsor+retire ent, hile those of +ounger ages are not so co pulsoril+ retira;le.

In respect of election to provincial, cit+, or unicipal positions, to re7uire that candidates should not ;e orethan ' +ears of age at the ti e the+ assu e office, if applica;le to ever+one, ight or ight not ;e areasona;le classification although, as the Solicitor Beneral has inti ated, a good polic+ of the la ould ;e

Page | 13



to pro ote the e ergence of +ounger ;lood in our political elective echelons. On the other hand, it ight ;ethat persons ore than ' +ears old a+ also ;e good elective local officials.

Co ing no to the case of retirees. Retire ent fro govern ent service a+ or a+ not ;e a reasona;ledis7ualification for elective local officials. or one thing, there can also ;e retirees fro govern ent serviceat ages, sa+ ;elo '. It a+ neither ;e reasona;le to dis7ualif+ retirees, aged ', for a ' +ear old retireecould ;e a good local official just like one, aged ', ho is not a retiree.

*ut, in the case of a '-+ear old elective local official, ho has retired fro a provincial, cit+ or unicipaloffice, there is reason to dis7ualif+ hi fro running for the sa e office fro hich he had retired, asprovided for in the challenged provision. 3he need for ne ;lood assu es relevance. 3he tiredness of theretiree for govern ent ork is present, and hat is e phaticall+ significant is that the retired e plo+ee hasalread+ declared hi self tired and unavaila;le for the sa e govern ent ork, ;ut, hich, ;+ virtue of achange of ind, he ould like to assu e again. It is for this ver+ reason that ine7ualit+ ill neither resultfro the application of the challenged provision. :ust as that provision does not den+ e7ual protectionneither does it per it of such denial #see 5eople vs. Vera, ' 5hil. ' G$(11H%. 5ersons si ilarl+ situated aresinlilarl+ treated.

In fine, it ;ears reiteration that the e7ual protection clause does not for;id all legal classification. Ahat isproscri;es is a classification hich is ar;itrar+ and unreasona;le. 3hat constitutional guarantee is not

violated ;+ a reasona;le classification ;ased upon su;stantial distinctions, here the classification isger ane to the purpose of the la and applies to all Chose ;elonging to the sa e class #5eralta vs.Co elec, )0 SCR& 1= G$(*)H citing el a vs. Salas, $) SCR& = G$( H/ Rafael v. E ;roider+ and

&pparel Control and Inspection 8oard, 0$ SCR& 11 G$( *H/ Inchong etc., et al. vs. ?ernande! $=$ 5hil.$$'' G$('*H%. 3he purpose of the la is to allo the e ergence of +ounger ;lood in local govern ents. 3heclassification in 7uestion ;eing pursuant to that purpose, it cannot ;e considered invalid <even it at ti es, it

a+ ;e suscepti;le to the o;jection that it is arred ;+ theoretical inconsistencies< #Chief :ustice ernando,3he Constitution of the 5hilippines, $(** ed., p. '2*%.

3here is an additional consideration. &;sent herein is a sho ing of the clear invalidit+ of the 7uestionedprovision. Aell accepted is the rule that to justif+ the nullification of a la , there ust ;e a clear andune7uivocal ;reach of the Constitution, not a dou;tful and e7uivocal ;reach. Courts are practicall+unani ous in the pronounce ent that la s shall not ;e declared invalid unless the conflict ith theConstitution is clear ;e+ond reasona;le dou;t #5eralta vs. CO4E@EC, )0 SCR& '' G$(*)H, citing Cooper vs.3elfair 2 Dall $2/ Dodd, Cases on Constitutional @a , 1rd ed. $(20, ' %. @astl+, it is ithin the co pentenceof the legislature to prescri;e 7ualifications for one ho desires to ;eco e a candidate for office providedthe+ are reasona;le, as in this case.

In so far as the petition of Igot and Salapantan are concerned, the second paragraph of section 2 of 8atas5a ;ansa 8lg. '0, 7uoted in full earlier, and hich the+ challenge, a+ ;e divided in t o parts. 3he firstprovides"

a. jud(ment of conviction jor any of the aforementioned crimes shall be conclusive evidence

of such fact ...

3he supre ac+ of the Constitution stands out as the cardinal principle. Ae are a are of the presu ption ofvalidit+ that attaches to a challenged statute, of the ell-settled principle that <all reasona;le dou;ts should;e resolved in favor of constitutionalit+,< and that Courts ill not set aside a statute as constitutionall+defective <e6cept in a clear case.< #5eople vs. Vera, supra %. Ae are constrained to hold that this is one suchclear case.

E6plicit is the constitutional provision that, in all cri inal prosecutions, the accused shall ;e presu edinnocent until the contrar+ is proved, and shall enjo+ the right to ;e heard ;+ hi self and counsel #&rticle IV,section $(, $(*1 Constitution%. &n accusation, according to the funda ental la , is not s+non+ ous ith

Page | 14



guilt. 3he challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presu ption of innocence, as a candidate isdis7ualified fro running for pu;lic office on the ground alone that charges have ;een filed against hi;efore a civil or ilitar+ tri;unal. It conde ns ;efore one is full+ heard. In ulti ate effect, e6cept as to thedegree of proof, no distinction is ade ;et een a person convicted of acts of dislotalt+ and one against

ho charges have ;een filed for such acts, as ;oth of the ould ;e ineligi;le to run for pu;lic office. &person dis7ualified to run for pu;lic office on the ground that charges have ;een filed against hi is virtuall+placed in the sa e categor+ as a person alread+ convicted of a cri e ith the penalt+ of arresto, hichcarries ith it the accessor+ penalt+ of suspension of the right to hold office during the ter of the sentence#&rt. 22, Revised 5enal Code%.

&nd although the filing of charges is considered as ;ut prima facie evidence, and therefore, a+ ;ere;utted, +et. there is <clear and present danger< that ;ecause of the pro6i it+ of the elections, ti econstraints ill prevent one charged ith acts of dislo+alt+ fro offering contrar+ proof to overco ethe prima facie evidence against hi .

&dditionall+, it is ;est that evidence pro and con of acts of dislo+alt+ ;e aired ;efore the Courts rather than;efore an ad inistrative ;od+ such as the CO4E@EC. & highl+ possi;le conflict of findings ;et een t ogovern ent ;odies, to the e6tre e detri ent of a person charged, ill there;+ ;e avoided. urther ore, alegislative ad inistrative deter ination of guilt should not ;e allo ed to ;e su;stituted for a judicialdeter ination.

8eing infected ith constitutional infir it+, a partial declaration of nullit+ of onl+ that o;jectiona;le portion isandated. It is separa;le fro the first portion of the second paragraph of section 2 of 8atas 5a ;ansa 8ig.

'0 hich can stand ;+ itself.

A?ERE ORE, $% the first paragraph of section 2 of 8atas pa ;ansa 8ilang '0 is here;+ declared valid.Said paragraph reads"

SEC. 2. $pecial disqualification. 1 In addition to violation of Section $= of &rticle II#C% ofthe Constitution and dis7ualifications entioned in e6isting la s hich are here;+ declaredas dis7ualification for an+ of the elective officials enu erated in Section $ hereof, an+ retiredelective provincial, cit+ or unicipal official, ho has received pa+ ent of the retire ent;enefits to hich he is entitled under the la and ho shall have ;een ' +ears of age at theco ence ent of the ter of office to hich he seeks to ;e elected, shall not ;e 7ualified torun for the sa e elective local office fro hich he has retired.

0% 3hat portion of the second paragraph of section 2 of 8atas 5a ;ansa 8ilang '0 providingthat <... the filing of charges for the co ission of such cri es ;efore a civil court or ilitar+tri;unal after preli inar+ investigation shall ;e prima facie evidence of such fact<, is here;+declared null and void, for ;eing violative of the constitutional presu ption of innocenceguaranteed to an accused.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 15



# 11 G.R. No. 17139 ! 2 3, 500

RO). RANDOL) S. DAVID, LOREN4O TA ADA III, RONALD LLA!AS, ". "ARRY L. RO UE, R.,OEL RUI4 BUTUYAN, ROGER R. RAYEL, GARY S. !ALLARI, RO!EL REGALADO BAGARES,

C"RISTO "ER ).C. BOLASTIG, 5etitioners, vs. GLORIA !ACA AGAL ARROYO, AS RESIDENTAND CO!!ANDER IN C"IE), E:ECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ER!ITA, "ON. AVELINOCRU4 II, SECRETARY O) NATIONAL DE)ENSE, GENERAL GENEROSO SENGA, C"IE) O)

STA)), AR!ED )ORCES O) T"E "ILI INES, DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO LO!IBAO,C"IE), "ILI INE NATIONAL OLICE, Respondents.

6-------------------------------------6

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL GUTIERRE4,J. ; &ll po ers need so e restraint/ practical adjust ents rather than rigid for ula are necessar+. $ Superior strength J the use of force J cannot ake rongs into rights. In this regard, the courts should ;evigilant in safeguarding the constitutional rights of the citi!ens, specificall+ their li;ert+.

Chief :ustice &rte io V. 5angani;anKs philosoph+ of li;ert+ is thus ost relevant. ?e said" < I+ - s%s*+<o=<*+g =*>%(t2, t'% s- =%s o& ?ust*-% s'ou=$ @%*g' '% <*=2 g *+st go<%(+ %+t +$ *+ t'% oo(, t'% o (%ss%$, t'% (g*+ =* %$, t'% $*s oss%ss%$ +$ t'% @%.< @a s and actionsthat restrict funda ental rights co e to the courts < ith a heav+ presu ption against their constitutionalvalidit+.<0

3hese seven #*% consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohi;ition allege that in issuing 5residential5rocla ation No. $=$* #55 $=$*% and Beneral Order No. ' #B.O. No. '%, 5resident Bloria 4acapagal-

&rro+o co itted grave a;use of discretion. 5etitioners contend that respondent officials of theBovern ent, in their professed efforts to defend and preserve de ocratic institutions, are actuall+tra pling upon the ver+ freedo guaranteed and protected ;+ the Constitution. ?ence, such issuancesare void for ;eing unconstitutional.

Once again, the Court is faced ith an age-old ;ut persistentl+ odern pro;le . Ho% does theConstitution of a free people combine the de(ree of liberty , %ithout %hich, la% becomes tyranny, %iththe de(ree of law , %ithout %hich, liberty becomes license L1

On e;ruar+ 02, 0== , as the nation cele;rated the 0=th &nniversar+ of the dsa eople o%er ,5resident &rro+o issued 55 $=$* declaring a state of national e ergenc+, thus"

NO , T"ERE)ORE , I, Bloria 4acapagal-&rro+o, 5resident of the Repu;lic of the 5hilippines andCo ander-in-Chief of the &r ed orces of the 5hilippines, ;+ virtue of the po ers vested upon e ;+Section $), &rticle * of the 5hilippine Constitution hich states that" <3he 5resident. . . henever it;eco es necessar+, . . . a+ call out #the% ar ed forces to prevent or suppress. . .re;ellion. . .,< and in

+ capacit+ as their Co ander-in-Chief, $o '%(%>2 -o +$ t'% A( %$ )o(-%s o& t'%'*=* *+%s, to *+t *+ = @ +$ o($%( t'(oug'out t'% '*=* *+%s, (%<%+t o( su (%ss ==

o& = @=%ss <*o=%+-% s @%== s +2 -t o& *+su((%-t*o+ o( (%>%==*o+ +$ to %+&o(-% ot'% = @s +$ to == $%-(%%s, o($%(s +$ (%gu= t*o+s (o u=g t%$ >2 % %(so+ ==2 o( u o$*(%-t*o+/ and s (o<*$%$ *+ S%-t*o+ 17, A(t*-=% 15 o& t'% Co+st*tut*o+ $o '%(%>2 $%-= (% o& N t*o+ = E %(g%+-2.She cited the follo ing facts as ;ases"

"EREAS , over these past onths, ele ents in the o=*t*- = o os*t*o+ ' <% -o+s *(%$ @*t'ut'o(*t (* +s o& t'% % t(% % L%&t (% (%s%+t%$ >2 t'% ND) C N A +$ t'% % t(% % R

(% (%s%+t%$ >2 *=*t (2 $<%+tu(*sts F t'% '*sto(*- = %+% *%s o& t'% $% o-( t*- '*=* *+St t% J ho are no in a tactical alliance and engaged in a concerted and s+ste atic conspirac+, overa ;road front, to ;ring do n the dul+ constituted Bovern ent elected in 4a+ 0==2/

"EREAS , these conspirators have repeatedl+ tried to ;ring do n the 5resident/

Page | 16

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_171396_2006.html#fnt1









"EREAS , t'% -= * s o& t'%s% %=% %+ts ' <% >%%+ (%- =%ss=2 g+*&*%$ >2 -%(t *+ s%t'% + t*o+ = %$*

"EREAS , this series of actions is hurting the 5hilippine State J ;+ o;structing governanceincluding '*+$%(*+g t'% g(o@t' o& t'% %-o+o 2 +$ s >ot g*+g t'% %o =%Hs -o+&*$%+-% *+go<%(+ %+t +$ t'%*( & *t' *+ t'% &utu(% o& t'*s -ou+t(2/

"EREAS , these -t*o+s (% $<%(s%=2 &&%-t*+g t'% %-o+o 2"EREAS , t'%s% -t*<*t*%s g*<% tot =*t (* + &o(-%s o& >ot' t'% % t(% % L%&t +$ % t(%

t'% o %+*+g to *+t%+s*&2 t'%*( <o@%$ * s to >(*+g $o@+ t'% $% o-( t*- '*=* *+% St t%/"EREAS , &rticle 0, Section 2 of the our Constitution akes the defense and preservation of the

de ocratic institutions and the State the pri ar+ dut+ of Bovern ent/

"EREAS , the activities a;ove-descri;ed, their conse7uences, ra ifications and collateral effectsconstitute a -=% ( +$ (%s%+t $ +g%( to the safet+ and the integrit+ of the 5hilippine State and of the

ilipino people/

On the sa e da+, the 5resident issued B. O. No. ' i ple enting 55 $=$*, thus"

"EREAS , over these past onths, ele ents in the political opposition have conspired ithauthoritarians of the e6tre e @eft, represented ;+ the ND -C55-N5& and the e6tre e Right,represented ;+ ilitar+ adventurists - the historical ene ies of the de ocratic 5hilippine State J and

ho are no in a tactical alliance and engaged in a concerted and s+ste atic conspirac+, over a ;roadfront, to ;ring do n the dul+-constituted Bovern ent elected in 4a+ 0==2/

"EREAS , these conspirators have repeatedl+ tried to ;ring do n our repu;lican govern ent/

"EREAS , the clai s of these ele ents have ;een recklessl+ agnified ;+ certain seg ents of thenational edia/

"EREAS , these series of actions is hurting the 5hilippine State ;+ o;structing governance, includinghindering the gro th of the econo + and sa;otaging the peopleKs confidence in the govern ent andtheir faith in the future of this countr+/

"EREAS , these actions are adversel+ affecting the econo +/

"EREAS , these activities give totalitarian forces/ of ;oth the e6tre e @eft and e6tre e Right the

opening to intensif+ their avo ed ai s to ;ring do n the de ocratic 5hilippine State/"EREAS , &rticle 0, Section 2 of our Constitution akes the defense and preservation of the

de ocratic institutions and the State the pri ar+ dut+ of Bovern ent/

"EREAS , the activities a;ove-descri;ed, their conse7uences, ra ifications and collateral effectsconstitute a clear and present danger to the safet+ and the integrit+ of the 5hilippine State and of the

ilipino people/

"EREAS , 5rocla ation $=$* date e;ruar+ 02, 0== has ;een issued declaring a State of NationalE ergenc+/

NO , T"ERE)ORE, I GLORIA !ACA AGAL ARROYO, ;+ virtue of the po ers vested in e underthe Constitution as 5resident of the Repu;lic of the 5hilippines, and Co ander-in-Chief of the

Repu;lic of the 5hilippines, and pursuant to 5rocla ation No. $=$* dated e;ruar+ 02, 0== , dohere;+ call upon the &r ed orces of the 5hilippines #& 5% and the 5hilippine National 5olice #5N5%,to prevent and suppress acts of terroris and la less violence in the countr+/

I here;+ direct the Chief of Staff of the & 5 and the Chief of the 5N5, as ell as the officers and en of the & 5 and 5N5, to * %$* t%=2 - ((2 out t'% +%-%ss (2 +$ (o (* t% -t*o+s +$ % su(to su (%ss +$ (%<%+t -ts o& t%((o(*s +$ = @=%ss <*o=%+-%.

On 4arch 1, 0== , e6actl+ one eek after the declaration of a state of national e ergenc+ and after allthese petitions had ;een filed, the 5resident lifted 55 $=$*. She issued 5rocla ation No. $=0$ hichreads"

Page | 17



"EREAS , pursuant to Section $), &rticle VII and Section $*, &rticle II of the Constitution,5rocla ation No. $=$* dated e;ruar+ 02, 0== , as issued declaring a state of national e ergenc+/

"EREAS , ;+ virtue of Beneral Order No.' and No. dated e;ruar+ 02, 0== , hich ere issued onthe ;asis of 5rocla ation No. $=$*, the &r ed orces of the 5hilippines #& 5% and the 5hilippineNational 5olice #5N5%, ere directed to aintain la and order throughout the 5hilippines, prevent andsuppress all for of la less violence as ell as an+ act of re;ellion and to undertake such action as

a+ ;e necessar+/

"EREAS , the & 5 and 5N5 have effectivel+ prevented, suppressed and 7uelled the acts la lessviolence and re;ellion/NO , T"ERE)ORE, I, GLORIA !ACA AGAL ARROYO, 5resident of the Repu;lic of the 5hilippines,;+ virtue of the po ers vested in e ;+ la , here;+ $%-= (% t' t t'% st t% o& + t*o+ = % %(g%+-' s -% s%$ to % *st.In their presentation of the factual ;ases of 55 $=$* and B.O. No. ', respondents stated that thepro6i ate cause ;ehind the e6ecutive issuances as the conspirac+ a ong so e ilitar+ officers,leftist insurgents of the Ne 5eopleKs &r + #N5&%, and so e e ;ers of the political opposition in aplot to unseat or assassinate 5resident &rro+o. 2 3he+ considered the ai to oust or assassinate the5resident and take-over the reigns of govern ent as a clear and present danger.

During the oral argu ents held on 4arch *, 0== , the Solicitor Beneral specified the facts leading to

the issuance of 55 $=$* and B.O. No. '. S*g+*&*- +t=2, t'%(% @ s +o (%&ut t*o+ &(o %t*t*o+-ou+s%=s.3he Solicitor Beneral argued that the intent of the Constitution is to give full $*s-(%t*o+ (2 o@%(s tothe 5resident in deter ining the necessit+ of calling out the ar ed forces. ?e e phasi!ed that none ofthe petitioners has sho n that 55 $=$* as ithout factual ;ases. Ahile he e6plained that it is notrespondentsK task to state the facts ;ehind the 7uestioned 5rocla ation, ho ever, the+ are presentingthe sa e, narrated hereunder, for the elucidation of the issues.

On :anuar+ $*, 0== , Captain Nathaniel Ra;on!a and irst @ieutenants Sonn+ Sar iento, @a renceSan :uan and 5atricio 8u idang, e ;ers of the 4agdalo Broup indicted in the Oak ood utin+,escaped their detention cell in ort 8onifacio, 3aguig Cit+. In a pu;lic state ent, the+ vo ed to re aindefiant and to elude arrest at all costs. 3he+ called upon the people to < sho% and proclaim ourdispleasure at the sham re(ime. Let us demonstrate our dis(ust, not only by (oin( to the streets in

protest, but also by %earin( red bands on our left arms. < '

On e;ruar+ $*, 0== , the authorities got hold of a docu ent entitled < +plan Hac)le < hich detailedplans for ;o ;ings and attacks during the 5hilippine 4ilitar+ &cade + &lu ni ?o eco ing in 8aguioCit+. 3he plot as to assassinate selected targets including so e ca;inet e ;ers and 5resident

&rro+o herself . >pon the advice of her securit+, 5resident &rro+o decided not to attend the &lu ni?o eco ing. 3he ne6t da+, at the height of the cele;ration, a ;o ; as found and detonated at the54& parade ground.

On e;ruar+ 0$, 0== , @t. San :uan as recaptured in a co unist safehouse in 8atangas province.ound in his possession ere t o #0% flash disks containing inutes of the eetings ;et een e ;ers

of the 4agdalo Broup and the National 5eopleKs &r + #N5&%, a tape recorder, audio cassettecartridges, diskettes, and copies of su;versive docu ents. * 5rior to his arrest, @t. San :uan announcedthrough DMR? that the < Ma(dalo2s 343ay %ould be on 5ebruary 67, 688&, the 68th !nniversary of

dsa .9

On e;ruar+ 01, 0== , 5N5 Chief &rturo @o i;ao intercepted infor ation that e ;ers of the 5N5-Special &ction orce ere planning to defect. 3hus, he i ediatel+ ordered S& Co anding Beneral4arcelino ranco, :r. to 9disavo%9 an+ defection. 3he latter pro ptl+ o;e+ed and issued a pu;licstate ent" < !ll $!5 units are under the effective control of responsible and trust%orthy officers %ith

proven inte(rity and unquestionable loyalty. <

On the sa e da+, at the house of for er Congress an 5eping Cojuangco, 5resident Cor+ &7uinoKs;rother, ;usiness en and id-level govern ent officials plotted oves to ;ring do n the &rro+oad inistration. Nell+ Sinda+en of 3I4E 4aga!ine reported that 5astor Sa+con, longti e &rro+o critic,

Page | 18












called a >.S. govern ent official a;out his groupKs plans if 5resident &rro+o is ousted. Sa+con alsophoned a an code-na ed Delta. Sa+con identified hi as 8 Ben. Danilo @i , Co ander of the

&r +Ks elite Scout Ranger. @i said < it %as all systems (o for the planned movement a(ainst !rroyo. <)

8 Ben. Danilo @i and 8rigade Co ander Col. &riel ueru;in confided to Ben. Beneroso Senga,Chief of Staff of the &r ed orces of the 5hilippines #& 5%, that a huge nu ;er of soldiers ould jointhe rallies to provide a critical ass and ar ed co ponent to the &nti-&rro+o protests to ;e held on

e;ruar+ 02, 0=='. &ccording to these t o #0% officers, there as no a+ the+ could possi;l+ stop thesoldiers ;ecause the+ too, ere ;reaking the chain of co and to join the forces foist to unseat the

5resident. ?o ever, Ben. Senga has re ained faithful to his Co ander-in-Chief and to the chain ofco and. ?e i ediatel+ took custod+ of 8 Ben. @i and directed Col. ueru;in to return to the5hilippine 4arines ?ead7uarters in ort 8onifacio.

Earlier, the C55-N5& called for intensification of political and revolutionar+ ork ithin the ilitar+ andthe police esta;lish ents in order to forge alliances ith its e ;ers and ke+ officials. N5& spokes anBregorio < a Roger< Rosal declared" < -he Communist arty and revolutionary movement and theentire people loo) for%ard to the possibility in the comin( year of accomplishin( its immediate tas) ofbrin(in( do%n the !rroyo re(ime: of renderin( it to %ea)en and unable to rule that it %ill not ta)e muchlon(er to end it .<(

On the other hand, Cesar Renerio, spokes an for the National De ocratic ront #ND % at NorthCentral 4indanao, pu;licl+ announced" < !nti4!rroyo (roups %ithin the military and police are (ro%in(

rapidly, hastened by the economic difficulties suffered by the families of !5 officers and enlisted personnel %ho underta)e counter4insur(ency operations in the field. < ?e clai ed that ith the forces ofthe national de ocratic ove ent, the anti-&rro+o conservative political parties, coalitions, plus thegroups that have ;een reinforcing since :une 0==', it is pro;a;le that the 5residentKs ouster is nearingits concluding stage in the first half of 0== .

Respondents further clai ed that the ;o ;ing of teleco unication to ers and cell sites in 8ulacanand 8ataan as also considered as additional factual ;asis for the issuance of 55 $=$* and B.O. No.'. So is the raid of an ar + outpost in 8enguet resulting in the death of three #1% soldiers. &nd also thedirective of the Co unist 5art+ of the 5hilippines ordering its front organi!ations to join ',=== 4etro4anila radicals and 0',=== ore fro the provinces in ass protests. $=

8+ idnight of e;ruar+ 01, 0== , the 5resident convened her securit+ advisers and several ca;inete ;ers to assess the gravit+ of the fer enting peace and order situation. She directed ;oth the & 5

and the 5N5 to account for all their en and ensure that the chain of co and re ains solid andundivided. 3o protect the +oung students fro an+ possi;le trou;le that ight ;reak loose on thestreets, the 5resident suspended classes in all levels in the entire National Capital Region.

)o( t'%*( (t, %t*t*o+%(s -*t%$ t'% %<%+ts t' t &o==o@%$ &t%( t'% *ssu +-% o& 1017 +No. 6.

I ediatel+, the Office of the 5resident announced the cancellation of all progra s and activitiesrelated to the 0=th anniversar+ cele;ration of dsa eople o%er / and revoked the per its to holdrallies issued earlier ;+ the local govern ents. :ustice Secretar+ Raul Bon!ales stated that politicalrallies, hich to the 5residentKs ind ere organi!ed for purposes of desta;ili!ation, arecancelled.5residential Chief of Staff 4ichael Defensor announced that < %arrantless arrests and ta)e4over of facilities, includin( media, can already be implemented .<$$

>ndeterred ;+ the announce ents that rallies and pu;lic asse ;lies ould not ;e allo ed, groups ofprotesters # e ;ers of ;ilusan( Mayo /no G 4>H and National ederation of @a;or >nions- ;ilusan(Mayo /no GN& @>- 4>H%, arched fro various parts of 4etro 4anila ith the intention of convergingat the EDS& shrine. 3hose ho ere alread+ near the EDS& site ere violentl+ dispersed ;+ hugeclusters of anti-riot police. 3he ell-trained police en used truncheons, ;ig fi;er glass shields, atercannons, and tear gas to stop and ;reak up the arching groups, and scatter the assed participants.3he sa e police action as used against the protesters arching for ard to Cu;ao, ue!on Cit+ andto the corner of Santolan Street and EDS&. 3hat sa e evening, hundreds of riot police en ;roke up anEDS& cele;ration rall+ held along &+ala &venue and 5aseo de Ro6as Street in 4akati Cit+ .$0

Page | 19














&ccording to petitioner ;ilusan( Mayo /no , the police cited 55 $=$* as the ground for the dispersal oftheir asse ;lies.

During the dispersal of the rall+ists along EDS&, police arrested # ithout arrant% petitioner Randolf S.David, a professor at the >niversit+ of the 5hilippines and ne spaper colu nist. &lso arrested as hisco panion, Ronald @la as, president of part+-list !)bayan .

&t around $0"0= in the earl+ orning of e;ruar+ 0', 0== , operatives of the Cri inal Investigation andDetection Broup #CIDB% of the 5N5, on the ;asis of 55 $=$* and B.O. No. ', raided the 3aily-ribune offices in 4anila. 3he raiding tea confiscated ne s stories ;+ reporters, docu ents, pictures,and ock-ups of the Saturda+ issue. 5olice en fro Ca p Cra e in ue!on Cit+ ere stationedinside the editorial and ;usiness offices of the ne spaper/ hile police en fro the 4anila 5oliceDistrict ere stationed outside the ;uilding. $1

& fe inutes after the search and sei!ure at the 3aily -ribune offices, the police surrounded thepre ises of another pro-opposition paper, 4ala+a, and its sister pu;lication, the ta;loid &;ante.

3he raid, according to 5residential Chief of Staff 4ichael Defensor, is 9meant to sho% a <stron( presence,2 to tell media outlets not to connive or do anythin( that %ould help the rebels in brin(in(do%n this (overnment.9 3he 5N5 arned that it ould take over an+ edia organi!ation that ould notfollo 9standards set by the (overnment durin( the state of national emer(ency.9 Director Beneral@o i;ao stated that 9if they do not follo% the standards = and the standards are 4 if they %ouldcontribute to instability in the (overnment, or if they do not subscribe to %hat is in General +rder >o. 'and roc. >o. ?8?@ = %e %ill recommend a <ta)eover.29 National 3eleco unicationsK Co issionerRonald Solis urged television and radio net orks to 9cooperate9 ith the govern ent for the duration of the state of national e ergenc+. ?e asked for 9balanced reportin(9 fro ;roadcasters hen coveringthe events surrounding the coup atte pt foiled ;+ the govern ent. ?e arned that his agenc+ ill nothesitate to reco end the closure of an+ ;roadcast outfit that violates rules set out for edia coverage

hen the national securit+ is threatened. $2

&lso, on e;ruar+ 0', 0== , the police arrested Congress an Crispin 8eltran, representingthe !na)pa%is 5art+ and Chair an of ;ilusan( Mayo /no # 4>%, hile leaving his far house in8ulacan. 3he police sho ed a arrant for his arrest dated $()'. 8eltranKs la +er e6plained that the

arrant, hich ste ed fro a case of inciting to re;ellion filed during the 4arcos regi e, had long;een 7uashed. 8eltran, ho ever, is not a part+ in an+ of these petitions.

Ahen e ;ers of petitioner 4> ent to Ca p Cra e to visit 8eltran, the+ ere told the+ could not;e ad itted ;ecause of 55 $=$* and B.O. No. '. 3 o e ;ers ere arrested and detained, hile therest ere dispersed ;+ the police.

*ayan Muna Representative Satur Oca po eluded arrest hen the police ent after hi during apu;lic foru at the Sulo ?otel in ue!on Cit+. 8ut his t o drivers, identified as Roel and &rt, ere takeninto custod+.

Retired 4ajor Beneral Ra on 4ontaPo, for er head of the 5hilippine Consta;ular+, as arrested hileith his ife and golf ates at the Orchard Bolf and Countr+ Clu; in Das ariPas, Cavite.

&tte pts ere ade to arrest !na)pa%is Representative Satur Oca po, Representative Rafael4ariano, *ayan Muna Representative 3eodoro CasiPo and Ba;riela Representative @i!a 4a!a. *ayanMuna Representative :osel Virador as arrested at the 5&@ 3icket Office in Davao Cit+. @ater, he asturned over to the custod+ of the ?ouse of Representatives here the <8atasan '< decided to sta+indefinitel+.

@et it ;e stressed at this point that the alleged violations of the rights of Representatives 8eltran, SaturOca po, et al ., are not ;eing raised in these petitions.

On 4arch 1, 0== , 5resident &rro+o issued 55 $=0$ declaring that the state of national e ergenc+ hasceased to e6ist.

In the interi , these seven #*% petitions challenging the constitutionalit+ of 55 $=$* and B.O. No. 'ere filed ith this Court against the a;ove-na ed respondents. 3hree #1% of these petitions i pleaded

5resident &rro+o as respondent.

Page | 20







In G.R. No. 17139 , petitioners Randolf S. David, et al . assailed 55 $=$* on the grounds that 1/ itencroaches on the e ergenc+ po ers of Congress/ 5/itis a su;terfuge to avoid the constitutionalre7uire ents for the i position of artial la / and 3/ it violates the constitutional guarantees offreedo of the press, of speech and of asse ;l+.

In G.R. No. 171 09, petitioners Nine! Cacho-Olivares and -ribune 5u;lishing Co., Inc. challenged theCIDBKs act of raiding the 3aily -ribune offices as a clear case of <censorship< or <prior restraint.< 3he+also clai ed that the ter <e ergenc+< refers onl+ to tsuna i, t+phoon, hurricane and si ilaroccurrences, hence, there is < absolutely no emer(ency < that arrants the issuance of 55 $=$*.

In G.R. No. 171 86, petitioners herein are Representative rancis :oseph B. Escudero, and t ent+one #0$% other e ;ers of the ?ouse of Representatives, including Representatives Satur Oca po,Rafael 4ariano, 3eodoro CasiPo, @i!a 4a!a, and :osel Virador . 3he+ asserted that 55 $=$* and B.O.No. ' constitute < usurpation of le(islative po%ers </ <violation of freedom of eApression < and <adeclaration of martial la% .< 3he+ alleged that 5resident &rro+o <g ravely abused her discretion in callin(out the armed forces %ithout clear and verifiable factual basis of the possibility of la%less violence anda sho%in( that there is necessity to do so. <

In G.R. No. 171 83,petitioners 4>, N& @>- 4>, and their e ;ers averred that 55 $=$* and B.O.No. ' are unconstitutional ;ecause 1/the+ arrogate unto 5resident &rro+o the po er to enact la s anddecrees/ 5/their issuance as ithout factual ;asis/ and 3/the+ violate freedo of e6pression andthe right of the people to peacea;l+ asse ;le to redress their grievances.

In G.R. No. 171 00, petitioner &lternative @a Broups, Inc. #&@BI% alleged that 55 $=$* and B.O. No.' are unconstitutional ;ecause the+ violate /Section 2 $' of &rticle II, >/ Sections $, $ 0, $* and 2 $) of

&rticle III, -/Section 01 $( of &rticle VI, and $/Section $* 0= of &rticle II of the Constitution.

In G.R. No. 171 89, petitioners :ose &nsel o I. Cadi! et al., alleged that 55 $=$* is an < arbitrary andunla%ful eAercise by the resident of her Martial La% po%ers .< &nd assu ing that 55 $=$* is not reall+a declaration of 4artial @a , petitioners argued that < it amounts to an eAercise by the resident ofemer(ency po%ers %ithout con(ressional approval. < In addition, petitioners asserted that 55 $=$*<(oes beyond the nature and function of a proclamation as defined under the Bevised !dministrativeCode.9

&nd lastl+, in G.R. No. 171 5 ,petitioner@oren 8. @egarda aintained that 55 $=$* and B.O. No. ' are<unconstitutional for bein( violative of the freedom of eApression, includin( its co(nate ri(hts such as

freedom of the press and the ri(ht to access to information on matters of public concern, all (uaranteed under !rticle , $ection 7 of the ? D@ Constitution. < In this regard, she stated that these issuancesprevented her fro full+ prosecuting her election protest pending ;efore the 5residential Electoral3ri;unal.

In respondentsK Consolidated Co ent, the Solicitor Beneral countered that" first, the petitions should;e dis issed for ;eing oot/ second, petitioners in B.R. Nos. $*$2== #&@BI%, $*$202 #@egarda%,$*$2)1 # 4> et al .%, $*$2)' #Escudero et al. % and $*$2)( #Cadi! et al .% have no legal standing/ third , iis not necessar+ for petitioners to i plead 5resident &rro+o as respondent/ fourth, 55 $=$* hasconstitutional and legal ;asis/ and fifth, 55 $=$* does not violate the peopleKs right to free e6pressionand redress of grievances.

On 4arch *, 0== , the Court conducted oral argu ents and heard the parties on the a;ove interlocking

issues hich a+ ;e su ari!ed as follo s"A. ROCEDURAL;

1/ Ahether the issuance of 55 $=0$ renders the petitions oot and acade ic.

5/ Ahether petitioners in 171 86 #Escudero et al. %,G.R. Nos. 171 00 #&@BI%,171 83 # 4> etal .%,171 89#Cadi! et al .%, and171 5 #@egarda% have legal standing.

B. SUBSTANTIVE;1/ Ahetherthe Supre e Court can revie the factual ;ases of 55 $=$*.

5/ Ahether 55 $=$* and B.O. No. ' are unconstitutional.

Page | 21















. acial Challenge

>. Constitutional 8asis

-. &s &pplied Challenge

A. ROCEDURALirst, e ust resolve the procedural road;locks.

I- Moot and Academic Principle

One of the greatest contri;utions of the & erican s+ste to this countr+ is the concept of judicial revieenunciated in Marbury v. Madison. 0$ 3his concept rests on the e6traordinar+ si ple foundation --

3he Constitution is the supre e la . It as ordained ;+ the people, the ulti ate source of all politicalauthorit+. It confers li ited po ers on the national govern ent. 6 6 6 I& t'% go<%(+ %+t -o+s-*ous=2o( u+-o+s-*ous=2 o<%(st% s t'%s% =* *t t*o+s t'%(% ust >% so % ut'o(*t2 -o %t%+t to 'o=$ **+ -o+t(o=, to t'@ (t *ts u+-o+st*tut*o+ = tt% t, +$ t'us to <*+$*- t% +$ (%s%(<% *+<*o=t'% @*== o& t'% %o =% s % (%ss%$ *+ t'% Co+st*tut*o+. T'*s o@%( t'% -ou(ts % %(-*s%. t'% >%g*++*+g +$ t'% %+$ o& t'% t'%o(2 o& ?u$*-* = (%<*%@.00

8ut the po er of judicial revie does not repose upon the courts a <self-starting capacit+.< 01 Courts a+e6ercise such po er onl+ hen the follo ing re7uisites are present" first, there ust ;e an actual caseor controvers+/ second, petitioners have to raise a 7uestion of constitutionalit+/ third, the constitutional7uestion ust ;e raised at the earliest opportunit+/ and fourth, the decision of the constitutional7uestion ust ;e necessar+ to the deter ination of the case itself. 02

Respondents aintain that the first and second re7uisites are a;sent, hence, e shall li it ourdiscussion thereon.

&n actual case or controvers+ involves a conflict of legal right, an opposite legal clai s suscepti;le of judicial resolution. It is <definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverselegal interest/< a real and su;stantial controvers+ ad itting of specific relief. 0' 3he Solicitor Beneralrefutes the e6istence of such actual case or controvers+, contending that the present petitions ererendered < oot and acade ic< ;+ 5resident &rro+oKs issuance of 55 $=0$.

Such contention lacks erit.

& oot and acade ic case is one that ceases to present a justicia;le controvers+ ;+ virtue ofsupervening events ,0 so that a declaration thereon ould ;e of no practical use or value. 0* Benerall+,courts decline jurisdiction over such case 0) or dis iss it on ground of ootness. 0(

3he Court holds that 5resident &rro+oKs issuance of 55 $=0$ did not render the present petitions ootand acade ic. During the eight #)% da+s that 55 $=$* as operative, the police officers, according topetitioners, co itted illegal acts in i ple enting it. A(% 1017 +$ G.O. No. 6 -o+st*tut*o+ = o(< =*$ Do t'%2 ?ust*&2 t'%s% ==%g%$ *==%g = -ts 3hese are the vital issues that ust ;e resolved inthe present petitions. It ust ;e stressed that < + u+-o+st*tut*o+ = -t *s +ot = @, *t -o+&%(s +o(*g'ts, *t * os%s +o $ut*%s, *t &&o($s +o (ot%-t*o+ *t *s *+ =%g = -o+t% = t*o+, *+o %(.<1=

3he < oot and acade ic< principle is not a agical for ula that can auto aticall+ dissuade the courtsin resolving a case. Courts ill decide cases, other ise oot and acade ic, if" first, there is a grave

violation of the Constitution/1$

second , the e6ceptional character of the situation and the para ountpu;lic interest is involved/ 10third, hen constitutional issue raised re7uires for ulation of controllingprinciples to guide the ;ench, the ;ar, and the pu;lic /11 and fourth, the case is capa;le of repetition +etevading revie . 12

&ll the foregoing e6ceptions are present here and justif+ this CourtKs assu ption of jurisdiction over theinstant petitions. 5etitioners alleged that the issuance of 55 $=$* and B.O. No. ' violates theConstitution. 3here is no 7uestion that the issues ;eing raised affect the pu;licKs interest, involving asthe+ do the peopleKs ;asic rights to freedo of e6pression, of asse ;l+ and of the press. 4oreover, theCourt has the dut+ to for ulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. It hasthe s+ ;olic function of educating the ;ench and the ;ar, and in the present petitions, t'% *=*t (2 +

Page | 22


































t'% o=*-%, on the e6tent of the protection given ;+ constitutional guarantees. 1' &nd lastl+, respondentsKcontested actions are capa;le of repetition. Certainl+, the petitions are su;ject to judicial revie .

In their atte pt to prove the alleged ootness of this case, respondents cited Chief :ustice &rte io V.5angani;anKs Separate Opinion in $anla)as v. Aecutive $ecretary .1 ?o ever, the+ failed to take intoaccount the Chief :usticeKs ver+ state ent that an other ise < oot< case a+ still ;e decided< provided the party raisin( it in a proper case has been andEor continues to be prejudiced or dama(edas a direct result of its issuance. < 3he present case falls right ithin this e6ception to the ootness rulepointed out ;+ the Chief :ustice.

II- Legal Standing

In vie of the nu ;er of petitioners suing in various personalities, the Court dee s it i perative tohave a ore than passing discussion on legal standing or locus standi.

Locus standi is defined as <a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given 7uestion.< 1* In privatesuits, standing is governed ;+ the <real-parties-in interest< rule as contained in Section 0, Rule 1 of the$((* Rules of Civil 5rocedure, as a ended. It provides that < %<%(2 -t*o+ ust >% (os%-ut%$ o($%&%+$%$ *+ t'% + % o& t'% (% = (t2 *+ *+t%(%st.< &ccordingl+, the <real-part+-in interest< is < t'%

(t2 @'o st +$s to >% >%+%&*t%$ o( *+?u(%$ >2 t'% ?u$g %+t *+ t'% su*t o( t'% (t2 %+t*t=%t'% < *=s o& t'% su*t.<1) Succinctl+ put, the plaintiffKs standing is ;ased on his o n right to the reliefsought.

3he difficult+ of deter ining locus standi arises in u>=*- su*ts. ?ere, the plaintiff ho asserts a <pu;licright< in assailing an allegedl+ illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general pu;lic.?e a+ ;e a person ho is affected no differentl+ fro an+ other person. ?e could ;e suing as a<stranger,< or in the categor+ of a <citi!en,< or Qta6pa+er.< In either case, he has to ade7uatel+ sho thathe is entitled to seek judicial protection. In other ords, he has to ake out a sufficient interest in thevindication of the pu;lic order and the securing of relief as a <citi!en< or <ta6pa+er.

Case la in ost jurisdictions no allo s ;oth <citi!en< and <ta6pa+er< standing in pu;lic actions. 3hedistinction as first laid do n in *eauchamp v. $il) ,1( here it as held that the plaintiff in a ta6pa+erKssuit is in a different categor+ fro the plaintiff in a citi!enKs suit. I+ t'% &o( %(, t'% = *+t*&& *s &&>2 t'% % %+$*tu(% o& u>=*- &u+$s, @'*=% *+ t'% = tt%(, '% *s >ut t'% %(% *+st(u %+t o& -o+-%(+. &s held ;+ the Ne ork Supre e Court in eople eA rel Case v. Collins "2= <I+ tt%( o&

%(% u>=*- (*g't, 'o@%<%(Jt'% %o =% (% t'% (% = (t*%sJIt *s t =% st t'% (*g't, *& +ot t$ut2, o& %<%(2 -*t* %+ to *+t%(&%(% +$ s%% t' t u>=*- o&&%+-% >% (o %(=2 u(su%$u+*s'%$, +$ t' t u>=*- g(*%< +-% >% (% %$*%$.< Aith respect to ta6pa+erKs suits, -err v.Jordan 2$ held that < t'% (*g't o& -*t* %+ +$ t 2%( to *+t *+ + -t*o+ *+ -ou(ts to (%st(t'% u+= @&u= us% o& u>=*- &u+$s to '*s *+?u(2 - ++ot >% $%+*%$.<

?o ever, to prevent just a;out an+ person fro seeking judicial interference in an+ official polic+ or actith hich he disagreed ith, and thus hinders the activities of govern ental agencies engaged in

pu;lic service, the >nited State Supre e Court laid do n the ore stringent < $*(%-t *+?u(2<t%st in Aarte Levitt ,20 later reaffir ed in -ileston v. /llman. 21 3he sa e Court ruled that for a private individual to

invoke the judicial po er to deter ine the validit+ of an e6ecutive or legislative action, '% ust s'o@t' t '% ' s sust *+%$ $*(%-t *+?u(2 s (%su=t o& t' t -t*o+, +$ *t *s +ot su&&*-*%+t t' t '%

g%+%( = *+t%(%st -o o+ to == % >%(s o& t'% u>=*-.

3his Court adopted the K$*(%-t *+?u(2K t%st in our jurisdiction. In eople v. 0era ,22

it held that theperson ho i pugns the validit+ of a statute ust have < %(so+ = +$ su>st +t* = *+t%(%st *+ t'- s% su-' t' t '% ' s sust *+%$, o( @*== sust *+ $*(%-t *+?u(2 s (%su=t.< 3he 0era doctrine asupheld in a litan+ of cases, such as, Custodio v. resident of the $enate ,2' Manila Bace Horse -rainers2

!ssociation v. 3e la 5uente ,2 ascual v. $ecretary of ublic For)s 2* and !nti4Chinese Lea(ue of thehilippines v. 5eliA. 2)

?o ever, ;eing a ere procedural technicalit+, the re7uire ent of locus standi a+ ;e aived ;+ theCourt in the e6ercise of its discretion. 3his as done in the 19 9 E %(g%+-2 o@%(s C s%s, !ranetav. 3in(lasan ,2( here the < t( +s-%+$%+t = * o(t +-%< of the cases pro pted the Court to actli;erall+. Such li;eralit+ as neither a rarit+ nor accidental. In !quino v. Comelec , '= this Court resolvedto pass upon the issues raised due to the < & ( (% -'*+g * =*- t*o+s< of the petition not ithstanding

Page | 23





































its categorical state ent that petitioner therein had no personalit+ to file the suit. Indeed, there is achain of cases here this li;eral polic+ has ;een o;served, allo ing ordinar+ citi!ens, e ;ers ofCongress, and civic organi!ations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionalit+ or validit+ of la s,regulations and rulings. '$

3hus, the Court has adopted a rule that even here the petitioners have failed to sho direct injur+,the+ have ;een allo ed to sue under the principle of < t( +s-%+$%+t = * o(t +-%.< 5ertinent are thefollo ing cases"

1/ Chavez v. ublic states !uthority, '0 here the Court ruled that t'% %+&o(-% %+t o& t'%-o+st*tut*o+ = (*g't to *+&o( t*o+ +$ t'% % u*t >=% $*&&us*o+ o& + tu( = (%sou(-%

tt%(s o& t( +s-%+$%+t = * o(t +-% @'*-' -=ot'% t'% %t*t*o+%( @*t'locus standi

(2 / *a(on( !lyansan( Ma)abayan v. amora, '1 herein the Court held that Kg*<%+ t'%t( +s-%+$%+t = * o(t +-% o& t'% *ssu%s *+<o=<%$, t'% Cou(t 2 (%= t'% st +$*+g(% u*(% %+ts +$ ==o@ t'% su*t to (os %( $%s *t% t'% = - o& $*(%-t *+?u(2 to t'% s%% *+g ?u$*-* = (%<*%@Kof the Visiting orces &gree ent/

3/ Lim v. Aecutive $ecretary , '2 hile the Court noted that the petitioners a+ not file suit intheir capacit+ as ta6pa+ers a;sent a sho ing that <8alikatan =0-=$< involves the e6ercise ofCongressK ta6ing or spending po ers, it reiterated its ruling in *a(on( !lyansan( Ma)abayan v.

amora, '' t' t *+ - s%s o& t( +s-%+$%+t = * o(t +-%, t'% - s%s ust >% s%tt=%$ (o+$ $%&*+*t%=2 +$ st +$*+g (% u*(% %+ts 2 >% (%= %$.

8+ a+ of su ar+, the follo ing rules a+ ;e culled fro the cases decided ;+ this Court. 3a6pa+ers,voters, concerned citi!ens, and legislators a+ ;e accorded standing to sue, provided that the follo ingre7uire ents are et"

1/the cases involve constitutional issues/

5/for t 2%(s, there ust ;e a clai of illegal dis;urse ent of pu;lic funds or that the ta6easure is unconstitutional/

3/for <ot%(s, there ust ;e a sho ing of o;vious interest in the validit+ of the election la in7uestion/

/for -o+-%(+%$ -*t* %+s, there ust ;e a sho ing that the issues raised are oftranscendental i portance hich ust ;e settled earl+/ and

6/for =%g*s= to(s, there ust ;e a clai that the official action co plained of infringes upontheir prerogatives as legislators.

Significantl+, recent decisions sho a certain toughening in the CourtKs attitude to ard legal standing.

In ;ilosbayan, nc. v. Morato ,' the Court ruled that the status of ;ilosbayan as a peopleKs organi!ationdoes not give it the re7uisite personalit+ to 7uestion the validit+ of the on-line lotter+ contract, ore so

here it does not raise an+ issue of constitutionalit+. 4oreover, it cannot sue as a ta6pa+er a;sent an+allegation that pu;lic funds are ;eing isused. Nor can it sue as a concerned citi!en as it does notallege an+ specific injur+ it has suffered.

In -elecommunications and *roadcast !ttorneys of the hilippines, nc. v. Comelec , '* the Courtreiterated the <direct injur+< test ith respect to concerned citi!ensK cases involving constitutionalissues. It held that <there ust ;e a sho ing that the citi!en personall+ suffered so e actual orthreatened injur+ arising fro the alleged illegal official act.<

In Lacson v. erez , ') the Court ruled that one of the petitioners, Laban n( 3emo)rati)on(ilipino #@D5%, is not a real part+-in-interest as it had not de onstrated an+ injur+ to itself or to its

leaders, e ;ers or supporters.

In $anla)as v. Aecutive $ecretary ,'( the Court ruled that onl+ the petitioners ho are e ;ers ofCongress have standing to sue, as the+ clai that the 5residentKs declaration of a state of re;ellion *s usu( t*o+ o& t'% % %(g%+-2 o@%(s o& Co+g(%ss, t'us * *(*+g t'%*( =%g*s= t*<% o@%. &s topetitioners $anla)as, artido Man((a(a%a, and $ocial Justice $ociety , the Court declared the to ;edevoid of standing, e7uating the ith the @D5 in Lacson .

Page | 24
























No , the application of the a;ove principles to the present petitions.

3he locus standi of petitioners in G.R. No. 17139 , particularl+ David and @la as, is ;e+ond dou;t. 3hesa e holds true ith petitioners in G.R. No. 171 09, Cacho-Olivares and -ribune 5u;lishing Co. Inc.3he+ alleged <direct injur+< resulting fro <illegal arrest< and <unla ful search< co itted ;+ policeoperatives pursuant to 55 $=$*. Rightl+ so, the Solicitor Beneral does not 7uestion their legal standing.

In G.R. No. 171 86, the opposition Congress en alleged there as usurpation of legislative po ers.3he+ also raised the issue of hether or not the concurrence of Congress is necessar+ henever thealar ing po ers incident to 4artial @a are used. 4oreover, it is in the interest of justice that thoseaffected ;+ 55 $=$* can ;e represented ;+ their Congress en in ;ringing to the attention of the Courtthe alleged violations of their ;asic rights.

In G.R. No. 171 00, #&@BI%, this Court applied the li;eralit+ rule in hilconsa v. nriquez , = ;apatiran>( M(a >a(lilin()od sa amahalaan n( ilipinas, nc. v. -an , $ !ssociation of $mall Lando%ners in the

hilippines, nc. v. $ecretary of !(rarian Beform , 0 *asco v. hilippine !musement and Gamin(Corporation , 1 and -a ada v. -uvera , 2 that hen the issue concerns a pu;lic right, it is sufficient thatthe petitioner is a citi!en and has an interest in the e6ecution of the la s.

In G.R. No. 171 83, 4>Ks assertion that 55 $=$* and B.O. No. ' violated its right to peacefulasse ;l+ a+ ;e dee ed sufficient to give it legal standing. O(g +* t*o+s 2 >% g( +t%$ st +$*to ss%(t t'% (*g'ts o& t'%*( % >%(s. ' Ae take judicial notice of the announce ent ;+ the Office ofthe 5resident ;anning all rallies and canceling all per its for pu;lic asse ;lies follo ing the issuanceof 55 $=$* and B.O. No. '.In G.R. No. 171 89, petitioners, Cadiz et al., ho are national officers of the Integrated 8ar of the5hilippines #I85% have no legal standing, having failed to allege an+ direct or potential injur+ hich theI85 as an institution or its e ;ers a+ suffer as a conse7uence of the issuance of 55 No. $=$* andB.O. No. '. In nte(rated *ar of the hilippines v. amora, the Court held that the ere invocation ;+the I85 of its dut+ to preserve the rule of la and nothing ore, hile undou;tedl+ true, is not sufficientto clothe it ith standing in this case. 3his is too general an interest hich is shared ;+ other groupsand the hole citi!enr+. ?o ever, in vie of the transcendental i portance of the issue, this Courtdeclares that petitioner have locus standi.

In G.R. No. 171 5 , @oren @egarda has no personalit+ as a ta6pa+er to file the instant petition as thereare no allegations of illegal dis;urse ent of pu;lic funds. 3he fact that she is a for er Senator is of no

conse7uence. She can no longer sue as a legislator on the allegation that her prerogatives as ala aker have ;een i paired ;+ 55 $=$* and B.O. No. '. ?er clai that she is a edia personalit+

ill not like ise aid her ;ecause there as no sho ing that the enforce ent of these issuancesprevented her fro pursuing her occupation. ?er su; ission that she has pending electoral protest;efore the 5residential Electoral 3ri;unal is like ise of no relevance. She has not sufficientl+ sho nthat 55 $=$* ill affect the proceedings or result of her case. 8ut considering once ore thetranscendental i portance of the issue involved, this Court a+ rela6 the standing rules.

It ust al a+s ;e ;orne in ind that the 7uestion of locus standi is ;ut corollar+ to the ;igger 7uestionof proper e6ercise of judicial po er. 3his is the underl+ing legal tenet of the <li;eralit+ doctrine< on legalstanding. It cannot ;e dou;ted that the validit+ of 55 No. $=$* and B.O. No. ' is a judicial 7uestion

hich is of para ount i portance to the ilipino people. 3o paraphrase :ustice @aurel, the hole of5hilippine societ+ no aits ith ;ated ;reath the ruling of this Court on this ver+ critical atter. 3hepetitions thus call for the application of the < t( +s-%+$%+t = * o(t +-%< doctrine, a rela6ation of thestanding re7uire ents for the petitioners in the <55 $=$* cases.< ?avvphil.net

3his Court holds that all the petitioners herein have locus standi .

Incidentall+, it is not proper to i plead 5resident &rro+o as respondent. Settled is the doctrine that the5resident, during his tenure of office or actual incu ;enc+, * a+ not ;e sued in any civil or cri inalcase, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or la . It ill degrade the dignit+ of thehigh office of the 5resident, the ?ead of State, if he can ;e dragged into court litigations hile servingas such. urther ore, it is i portant that he ;e freed fro an+ for of harass ent, hindrance ordistraction to ena;le hi to full+ attend to the perfor ance of his official duties and functions. >nlike thelegislative and judicial ;ranch, onl+ one constitutes the e6ecutive ;ranch and an+thing hich i pairs his

Page | 25
























usefulness in the discharge of the an+ great and i portant duties i posed upon hi ;+ theConstitution necessaril+ i pairs the operation of the Bovern ent. ?o ever, this does not ean that the5resident is not accounta;le to an+one. @ike an+ other official, he re ains accounta;le to thepeople ) ;ut he a+ ;e re oved fro office onl+ in the ode provided ;+ la and that is ;+i peach ent. (

B. SUBSTANTIVEI. e!iew o" #actual $ases

5etitioners aintain that 55 $=$* has no factual ;asis. ?ence, it as not <necessar+< for 5resident &rro+o to issue such 5rocla ation.

3he issue of hether the Court a+ revie the factual ;ases of the 5residentKs e6ercise of hisCo ander-in-Chief po er has reached its distilled point - fro the indulgent da+s of *arcelon v.*a)er *= and Montene(ro v. Castaneda *$ to the volatile era of Lansan( v. Garcia, *0 !quino, Jr. v.

nrile, *1 and Barcia-5adilla v. Enrile. *2 3he tug-of- ar al a+s cuts across the line defining <political7uestions,< particularl+ those 7uestions <in regard to hich full discretionar+ authorit+ has ;eendelegated to the legislative or e6ecutive ;ranch of the govern ent.< *' *arcelon and Montene(ro ere inunison in declaring that the ut'o(*t2 to $%-*$% @'%t'%( + % *g%+-2 ' s (*s%+ >%=o+gs to t'%

(%s*$%+t and '*s $%-*s*o+ *s &*+ = +$ -o+-=us*<% o+ t'% -ou(ts. Lansan( took the opposite vie .3here, the e ;ers of the Court ere unani ous in the conviction that the Court has the authorit+ toin7uire into the e6istence of factual ;ases in order to deter ine their constitutional sufficienc+. )(ot'% (*+-* =% o& s% ( t*o+ o& o@%(s, *t s'*&t%$ t'% &o-us to t'% s2st% o& -'%- s +$ > =Ku+$%( @'*-' t'% (%s*$%+t *s su (% %, o+=2i" +$ w%en '% -ts @*t'*+ t'% s '%(% ==ott%to '* >2 t'% B s*- L @, +$ t'% ut'o(*t2 to $%t%( *+% @'%t'%( o( +ot '% ' s so -t%$ *s<%st%$ *+ t'% u$*-* = D% (t %+t,w%ic% in t%is respect , *s, *+ tu(+,-o+st*tut*o+ ==2supreme .<* In $(*1, the unani ous Court of Lansan( as divided in !quino v.

nrile. ** 3here, the Court as al ost evenl+ divided on the issue of hether the validit+ of thei position of 4artial @a is a political or justicia;le 7uestion. *) 3hen ca e Garcia4 adilla v. nrile hichgreatl+ diluted Lansan( . It declared that there is a need to re-e6a ine the latter case, ratiocinating that<*+ t* %s o& @ ( o( + t*o+ = % %(g%+-2, t'% (%s*$%+t ust >% g*<%+ >so=ut% -o+t(o= &o<%(2 =*&% o& t'% + t*o+ +$ t'% go<%(+ %+t *s *+ g(% t %(*=. T'% (%s*$%+t, *t *+to+%$,

+s@%( >=% o+=2 to '*s -o+s-*%+-%, t'% %o =%, +$ Go$.<*(

3he nte(rated *ar of the hilippines v. amora )= -- a recent case ost pertinent to these cases at;ar echoed a principle si ilar to Lansan(. Ahile the Court considered the 5residentKs <calling-out<po er as a discretionar+ po er solel+ vested in his isdo , it stressed that < t'*s $o%s +ot (%<%+t +% *+ t*o+ o& @'%t'%( su-' o@%( @ s % %(-*s%$ @*t'*+ %( *ss*>=% -o+st*tut*o+ = =*@'%t'%( *t @ s % %(-*s%$ *+ ++%( -o+st*tut*+g g( <% >us% o& $*s-(%t*o+.<3his ruling is ainl+a result of the CourtKs reliance on Section $, &rticle VIII of $()* Constitution hich fortifies the authorit+of the courts to deter ine in an appropriate action the validit+ of the acts of the political depart ents.>nder the ne definition of judicial po er, the courts are authori!ed not onl+ <to settle actualcontroversies involving rights hich are legall+ de anda;le and enforcea;le,< ;ut also < to $%t%( *+%@'%t'%( o( +ot t'%(% ' s >%%+ g( <% >us% o& $*s-(%t*o+ ou+t*+g to = - o( % -%ss o&

?u(*s$*-t*o+ o+ t'% (t o& +2 >( +-' o( *+st(u %+t =*t2 o& t'% go<%(+ %+t.< 3he latter part of theauthorit+ represents a ;roadening of judicial po er to ena;le the courts of justice to revie hat as;efore a for;idden territor+, to it, the discretion of the political depart ents of the govern ent. )$ Itspeaks of judicial prerogative not onl+ in ter s of o@%( ;ut also of $ut2 .)0

&s to ho the Court a+ in7uire into the 5residentKs e6ercise of po er, Lansan( adopted the test that<judicial in7uir+ can (o no further than to satisf+ the Court not that the 5residentKs decision is correct, <;ut that <the 5resident did not act arbitrarily .< 3hus, the standard laid do n is not correctness, ;utar;itrariness .)1 In nte(rated *ar of the hilippines , this Court further ruled that < *t *s *+-u >%+t u o+t'% %t*t*o+%( to s'o@ t' t t'% (%s*$%+tHs $%-*s*o+ *s tot ==2 >%(%&t o& & -tu = > s*s< and that if hefails, ;+ a+ of proof, to support his assertion, then < t'*s Cou(t - ++ot u+$%(t % + *+$% %+$%+t*+<%st*g t*o+ >%2o+$ t'% =% $*+gs.<

5etitioners failed to sho that 5resident &rro+oKs e6ercise of the calling-out po er, ;+ issuing 55 $=$*,is totall+ ;ereft of factual ;asis. & reading of the Solicitor BeneralKs Consolidated Co ent and

Page | 26








































4e orandu sho s a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of 55 $=$*, ithsupporting reports for ing part of the records. 4entioned are the escape of the 4agdalo Broup, theiraudacious threat of the Ma(dalo 343ay , the defections in the ilitar+, particularl+ in the 5hilippine4arines, and the reproving state ents fro the co unist leaders. 3here as also the 4inutes of theIntelligence Report and Securit+ Broup of the 5hilippine &r + sho ing the gro ing alliance ;et eenthe N5& and the ilitar+. 5etitioners presented nothing to refute such events. 3hus, a;sent an+ contrar+allegations, the Court is convinced that the 5resident as justified in issuing 55 $=$* calling for ilitar+aid.

Indeed, judging the seriousness of the incidents, 5resident &rro+o as not e6pected to si pl+ fold herar s and do nothing to prevent or suppress hat she ;elieved as la less violence, invasion orre;ellion. ?o ever, the e6ercise of such po er or dut+ ust not stifle li;ert+.

II. &onstitutionality o" PP ' ') and *.+. ,o. Do-t(*+%s o& S%<%( = o=*t*- = T'%o(*sts

o+ t'% o@%( o& t'% (%s*$%+t *+ T* %s o& E %(g%+-23his case ;rings to fore a contentious su;ject -- the po er of the 5resident in ti es of e ergenc+ . &gli pse at the various political theories relating to this su;ject provides an ade7uate ;ackdrop for our

ensuing discussion.

:ohn @ocke, descri;ing the architecture of civil govern ent, called upon the English doctrine ofprerogative to cope ith the pro;le of e ergenc+. In ti es of danger to the nation, positive laenacted ;+ the legislature ight ;e inade7uate or even a fatal o;stacle to the pro ptness of actionnecessar+ to avert catastrophe. In these situations, the Cro n retained a prerogative < o@%( to -t

--o($*+g to $*s-(%t*o+ &o( t'% u>=*- goo$, @*t'out t'% (os-(* t*o+ o& t'% = @ +$ so %t* %%<%+ g *+st *t.<)2 8ut @ocke recogni!ed that this oral restraint ight not suffice to avoid a;use ofprerogative po ers. 'o s' == ?u$g% t'% +%%$ &o( (%so(t*+g to t'% (%(og t*<% +$ 'o@ 2 *ts

>us% >% <o*$%$ ?ere, @ocke readil+ ad itted defeat, suggesting that Kt'% %o =% ' <% +o ot'%(% %$2 *+ t'*s, s *+ == ot'%( - s%s @'%(% t'%2 ' <% +o ?u$g% o+ % (t', >ut to % = to"% <%+.<)'

:ean-:ac7ues Rousseau also assu ed the need for te porar+ suspension of de ocratic processes ofgovern ent in ti e of e ergenc+. &ccording to hi "

3he infle6i;ilit+ of the la s, hich prevents the fro adopting the selves to circu stances, a+, in

certain cases, render the disastrous and ake the ;ring a;out, at a ti e of crisis, the ruin of theState

It is rong therefore to ish to ake political institutions as strong as to render it i possi;le to suspendtheir operation. Even Sparta allo ed its la to lapse...

If the peril is of such a kind that the paraphernalia of the la s are an o;stacle to their preservation, theethod is to no inate a supre e la +er, ho shall silence all the la s and suspend for a o ent the

sovereign authorit+. In such a case, there is no dou;t a;out the general ill, and it clear that thepeopleKs first intention is that the State shall not perish. )

Rosseau did not fear the a;use of the e ergenc+ dictatorship or < su (% % g*st( -2< as he ter edit. or hi , it ould ore likel+ ;e cheapened ;+ <indiscreet use.< ?e as un illing to rel+ upon an< % = to '% <%+.< Instead, he relied upon a tenure of office of prescri;ed duration to avoidperpetuation of the dictatorship. )*

:ohn Stuart 4ill concluded his ardent defense of representative govern ent" < I & ( &(o-o+$% +*+g, *+ - s%s o& % t(% % +%-%ss*t2, t'% ssu t*o+ o& >so=ut% o@%( *+ t'% &o(t% o( (2 $*-t to(s'* .<))

Nicollo 4achiavelliKs vie of e ergenc+ po ers, as one ele ent in the hole sche e of li itedgovern ent, furnished an ironic contrast to the @ockean theor+ of prerogative. ?e recogni!ed andatte pted to ;ridge this chas in de ocratic political theor+, thus"

No , in a ell-ordered societ+, it should never ;e necessar+ to resort to e6tra Jconstitutional easures/for although the+ a+ for a ti e ;e ;eneficial, +et the precedent is pernicious, for if the practice is onceesta;lished for good o;jects, the+ ill in a little hile ;e disregarded under that prete6t ;ut for evil

Page | 27













purposes. 3hus, no repu;lic ill ever ;e perfect if she has not ;+ la provided for ever+thing, having are ed+ for ever+ e ergenc+ and fi6ed rules for appl+ing it. )(

4achiavelli J in contrast to @ocke, Rosseau and 4ill J sought to incorporate into the constitution aregulari!ed s+ste of stand;+ e ergenc+ po ers to ;e invoked ith suita;le checks and controls inti e of national danger. ?e atte pted forthrightl+ to eet the pro;le of co ;ining a capaciousreserve of po er and speed and vigor in its application in ti e of e ergenc+, ith effectiveconstitutional restraints .(=

Conte porar+ political theorists, addressing the selves to the pro;le of response to e ergenc+ ;+constitutional de ocracies, have e plo+ed the doctrine of constitutional dictatorship. ($ rederick 4.Aatkins sa < +o (% so+ @'2 >so=ut*s s'ou=$ +ot >% us%$ s % +s &o( t'% $%&%+s% o& =*+st*tut*o+s,< provided it <s%(<%s to (ot%-t %st >=*s'%$ *+st*tut*o+s &(o t'% $ +g%( o& %(*+?u(2 *+ %(*o$ o& t% o( (2 % %(g%+-2 +$ *s &o==o@%$ >2 (o t (%tu(+ to t'% (%&o( s o& o=*t*- = =*&%.<(0 ?e recogni!ed the t o #0% ke+ ele ents of the pro;le of e ergenc+governance, as ell as all constitutional governance" *+-(% s*+g $ *+*st( t*<% o@%(s o& t'%% %-ut*<%, @'*=% t t'% s % t* % K* os*+g =* *t t*o+ u o+ t' t o@%( .<(1 Aatkins placed his realfaith in a sche e of constitutional dictatorship. 3hese are the conditions of success of such adictatorship" KT'% %(*o$ o& $*-t to(s'* ust >% (%= t*<%=2 s'o(tJD*-t to(s'* s'ou=$ =@ 2s >st(*-t=2 =%g*t* t% *+ -' ( -t%(J)*+ = ut'o(*t2 to $%t%( *+% t'% +%%$ &o( $*-t to(s'* *+ +g*<%+ - s% ust +%<%( (%st @*t' t'% $*-t to( '* s%=& < (2 and the o;jective of such an e ergenc+dictatorship should ;e < st(*-t o=*t*- = -o+s%(< t*s.<Carl :. riedrich cast his anal+sis in ter s si ilar to those of Aatkins. (' <It is a pro;le of concentratingpo er J in a govern ent here po er has consciousl+ ;een divided J to cope ith situations ofunprecedented agnitude and gravit+. 3here ust ;e a ;road grant of po ers, su;ject to e7uall+strong li itations as to ho shall e6ercise such po ers, hen, for ho long, and to hatend.<( riedrich, too, offered criteria for judging the ade7uac+ of an+ of sche e of e ergenc+ po ers,to it" KT'% % %(g%+-2 % %-ut*<% ust >% o*+t%$ >2 -o+st*tut*o+ = % +s F *.%., '% u=%g*t* t% '% s'ou=$ +ot %+?o2 o@%( to $%t%( *+% t'% % *st%+-% o& + % %(g%+-2 %

o@%(s s'ou=$ >% % %(-*s%$ u+$%( st(*-t t* % =* *t t*o+ +$ = st, t'% o>?%-t*<% o& %-t*o+ ust >% t'% $%&%+s% o& t'% -o+st*tut*o+ = o($%( .<(*

Clinton @. Rossiter, after surve+ing the histor+ of the e plo+ ent of e ergenc+ po ers in Breat 8ritain,rance, Aei ar, Ber an+ and the >nited States, reverted to a description of a sche e of

<constitutional dictatorship< as solution to the ve6ing pro;le s presented ;+ e ergenc+. () @ike Aatkinsand riedrich, he stated a priori the conditions of success of the <constitutional dictatorship,< thus"

1/ No general regi e or particular institution of constitutional dictatorship should ;e initiatedunless it is necessar+ or even indispensa;le to the preservation of the State and itsconstitutional order

5/ the decision to institute a constitutional dictatorship should never ;e in the hands of thean or en ho ill constitute the dictator

3/ No govern ent should initiate a constitutional dictatorship ithout aking specific provisionsfor its ter ination

/ all uses of e ergenc+ po ers and all readjust ents in the organi!ation of the govern ent

should ;e effected in pursuit of constitutional or legal re7uire ents6/ no dictatorial institution should ;e adopted, no right invaded, no regular procedure alteredan+ ore than is a;solutel+ necessar+ for the con7uest of the particular crisis . . .

/ 3he easures adopted in the prosecution of the a constitutional dictatorship should never ;eper anent in character or effect

7/ 3he dictatorship should ;e carried on ;+ persons representative of ever+ part of the citi!enr+interested in the defense of the e6isting constitutional order. . .

8/ >lti ate responsi;ilit+ should ;e aintained for ever+ action taken under a constitutionaldictatorship. . .

Page | 28
























9/ 3he decision to ter inate a constitutional dictatorship, like the decision to institute one shouldnever ;e in the hands of the an or en ho constitute the dictator. . .

10/ No constitutional dictatorship should e6tend ;e+ond the ter ination of the crisis for hich itas instituted

11/ the ter ination of the crisis ust ;e follo ed ;+ a co plete return as possi;le to thepolitical and govern ental conditions e6isting prior to the initiation of the constitutionaldictatorship ((

Rossiter accorded to legislature a far greater role in the oversight e6ercise of e ergenc+ po ers thandid Aatkins. ?e ould secure to Congress final responsi;ilit+ for declaring the e6istence or ter inationof an e ergenc+, and he places great faith in the effectiveness of congressional investigatingco ittees. $==

$cott and Cotter , in anal+!ing the a;ove conte porar+ theories in light of recent e6perience, ere onein sa+ing that, < t'% sugg%st*o+ t' t $% o-( -*%s su((%+$%( t'% -o+t(o= o& go<%(+ %+t to +

ut'o(*t (* + (u=%( *+ t* % o& g( <% $ +g%( to t'% + t*o+ *snot > s%$ u o+ sou+$ -o+st*tut*o+ =t'%o(2 .< 3o appraise e ergenc+ po er in ter s of constitutional dictatorship serves erel+ to distortthe pro;le and hinder realistic anal+sis. It atters not hether the ter <dictator< is used in its nor alsense #as applied to authoritarian rulers% or is e plo+ed to e ;race all chief e6ecutives ad inisteringe ergenc+ po ers. ?o ever used, <constitutional dictatorship< cannot ;e divorced fro the i plicationof suspension of the processes of constitutionalis . 3hus, the+ favored instead the <concept ofconstitutionalis < articulated ;+ Charles ?. 4cIl ain"

& concept of constitutionalis hich is less isleading in the anal+sis of pro;le s of e ergenc+po ers, and hich is consistent ith the findings of this stud+, is that for ulated ;+ Charles ?.4cIl ain. Ahile it does not ;+ an+ eans necessaril+ e6clude so e indeter inate li itations upon thesu;stantive po ers of govern ent, full e phasis is placed upon (o-%$u( = =* *t t*o+s, and o=*t*-(%s o+s*>*=*t2. 4cIl ain clearl+ recogni!ed the need to repose ade7uate po er in govern ent. &nd indiscussing the eaning of constitutionalis , he insisted that the '*sto(*- = +$ (o %( t%st o&-o+st*tut*o+ =*s @ s t'% % *st%+-% o& $% u t% (o-%ss%s &o( %% *+g go<%(+ %+t(%s o+s*>=%. ?e refused to e7uate constitutionalis ith the enfee;ling of govern ent ;+ ane6aggerated e phasis upon separation of po ers and su;stantive li itations on govern ental po er.?e found that the reall+ effective checks on despotis have consisted not in the eakening ofgovern ent ;ut, ;ut rather in the =* *t*+g o& *t/ ;et een hich there is a great and ver+ significantdifference. I+ sso-* t*+g -o+st*tut*o+ =*s @*t' K=* *t%$K s $*st*+gu*s'%$ &(o K@% Kgo<%(+ %+t, !-I=@ *+ % +t go<%(+ %+t =* *t%$ to t'% o($%(=2 (o-%$u(% o& = @ s o ot'% (o-%ss%s o& &o(-%. T'% t@o &u+$ %+t = -o((%= t*<% %=% %+ts o& -o+st*tut*o+ =*s

== =o<%(s o& =*>%(t2 ust 2%t &*g't (% t'% =%g = =* *ts to (>*t( (2 o@%( +$ -o =%(%s o+s*>*=*t2 o& go<%(+ %+t to t'% go<%(+%$.$=$

In the final anal+sis, the various approaches to e ergenc+ of the a;ove political theorists J- fro @ockKs<theor+ of prerogative,< to AatkinsK doctrine of <constitutional dictatorship< and, eventuall+, to 4cIl ainKs<principle of constitutionalis < --- ulti atel+ ai to solve one real pro;le in e ergenc+ governance,i.e., t' t o& ==ott*+g *+-(% s*+g (% s o& $*s-(%t*o+ (2 o@%( to t'% C'*%& E %-ut*<%, @'**+su(*+g t' t su-' o@%(s @*== >% % %(-*s%$ @*t' s%+s% o& o=*t*- = (%s o+s*>*=*t2 +%&&%-t*<% =* *t t*o+s +$ -'%- s.Our Constitution has fairl+ coped ith this pro;le . resh fro the fetters of a repressive regi e, the$() Constitutional Co ission, in drafting the $()* Constitution, endeavored to create a govern entin the concept of :ustice :acksonKs <;alanced po er structure.< $=0 E6ecutive, legislative, and judicialpo ers are dispersed to the 5resident, the Congress, and the Supre e Court, respectivel+. Each issupre e ithin its o n sphere. But +o+% ' s t'% o+o o=2 o& o@%( *+ t* %s o& % %(g%+-2. E>( +-' *s g*<%+ (o=% to s%(<% s =* *t t*o+ o( -'%- u o+ t'% ot'%(. 3his s+ste doesnot @% %+ the 5resident, it just =* *tshis po er, using the language of 4cIl ain. In other ords, inti es of e ergenc+, our Constitution reasona;l+ de ands that e repose a certain a ount of faith inthe ;asic integrit+ and isdo of the Chief E6ecutive ;ut, at the sa e ti e, *t o>=*g%s '* to o %( t%@*t'*+ - (%&u==2 (%s-(*>%$ (o-%$u( = =* *t t*o+s.

. K) -* = C' ==%+g%K

Page | 29













5etitioners contend that 55 $=$* is void on its face ;ecause of its <over;readth.< 3he+ clai that itsenforce ent encroached on ;oth unprotected and protected rights under Section 2, &rticle III of theConstitution and sent a <chilling effect< to the citi!ens.

& facial revie of 55 $=$*, using the over;readth doctrine, is uncalled for.

5irst and foremost , the over;readth doctrine is an anal+tical tool developed for testing <on their faces<statutes in &(%% s %%-' - s%s,also kno n under the & erican @a as irst & end ent cases. $=1

& plain reading of 55 $=$* sho s that it is not pri aril+ directed to speech or even speech-related

conduct. It is actuall+ a call upon the & 5 to prevent or suppress all for sof = @=%ss <*o=%+-%. In /nited $tates v. $alerno ,$=2the >S Supre e Court held that < @% ' <% +ot(%-og+* %$ + Mo<%(>(% $t'H $o-t(*+% outs*$% t'% =* *t%$ -o+t% t o& t'% )*(st A %+$ %+

&(%%$o o& s %%-'/.

4oreover, the over;readth doctrine is not intended for testing the validit+ of a la that <reflectslegiti ate state interest in aintaining co prehensive control over har ful, constitutionall+ unprotectedconduct.< >ndou;tedl+, la less violence, insurrection and re;ellion are considered <har ful< and<constitutionall+ unprotected conduct.< In *roadric) v. +)lahoma, $=' it as held"

It re ains a Q atter of no little difficult+K to deter ine hen a la a+ properl+ ;e held void on its faceand hen Qsuch su ar+ actionK is inappropriate. But t'% = *+ * o(t o& ou( - s%s *s, t t'% <%(2=% st, t' t & -* = o<%(>(% $t' $?u$*- t*o+ *s + % -% t*o+ to ou( t( $*t*o+ = (u=%s o& (

t' t *ts &u+-t*o+, =* *t%$ o+% t t'% outs%t, tt%+u t%s s t'% ot'%(@*s% u+ (ot%-t%$ >%' <t' t *t &o(>*$s t'% St t% to s +-t*o+ o<%s &(o M u(% s %%-'H to@ ($ -o+$u-t and t' t -o+$u-t F%<%+ *& % (%ss*<% F & ==s @*t'*+ t'% s-o % o& ot'%(@*s% < =*$ -(* *+ = = @s t' t (%=%g*t* t% st t% *+t%(%sts *+ *+t *+*+g -o (%'%+s*<% -o+t(o=s o<%( ' ( &u=, -o+st*tut*u+ (ot%-t%$ -o+$u-t .

3hus, clai s of facial over;readth are entertained in cases involving statutes hich, >2 t'%*( t%( s,seek to regulate onl+ < s o %+ @o($s< and again, that < o<%(>(% $t' -= * s, *& %+t%(t *+%$ t =' <% >%%+ -u(t *=%$ @'%+ *+<o %$ g *+st o($*+ (2 -(* *+ = = @s t' t (% soug't to >% to (ot%-t%$ -o+$u-t .<$= ?ere, the incontroverti;le fact re ains that 55 $=$* pertains to a spectruof -o+$u-t , not free speech, hich is anifestl+ su;ject to state regulation.

$econd, facial invalidation of la s is considered as < +*&%st=2 st(o+g %$*-*+%,< to ;e used<s (*+g=2 +$ o+=2 s = st (%so(t,< and is <g%+%( ==2 $*s& <o(%$/<$=* 3he reason for this is o;vious.E ;edded in the traditional rules governing constitutional adjudication is the principle that a person to

ho a la a+ ;e applied ill not ;e heard to challenge a la on the ground that it a+ conceiva;l+;e applied unconstitutionall+ to others, i.e., *+ ot'%( s*tu t*o+s +ot >%&o(% t'% Cou(t.$=) & riter andscholar in Constitutional @a e6plains further"

T'% ost $*st*+-t*<% &% tu(% o& t'% o<%(>(% $t' t%-'+* u% *s t' t *t ( s + % -% t*o+ to so& t'% usu = (u=%s o& -o+st*tut*o+ = =*t*g t*o+. O($*+ (*=2, (t*-u= ( =*t*g +t -= * s t' t*s u+-o+st*tut*o+ = s =*%$ to '* o( '%( *& t'% =*t*g +t (%< *=s, t'% -ou(ts - (<% @ 2u+-o+st*tut*o+ = s %-ts o& t'% = @ >2 *+< =*$ t*+g *ts * (o %( =*- t*o+s o+ - s% to> s*s. !o(%o<%(, -' ==%+g%(s to = @ (% +ot %( *tt%$ to ( *s% t'% (*g'ts o& t'*($ (t*%s - + o+=2 ss%(t t'%*( o@+ *+t%(%sts. I+ o<%(>(% $t' + =2s*s, t'os% (u=%s g*<% @ 2 -' ==%

(% %( *tt%$ to ( *s% t'% (*g'ts o& t'*($ (t*%s/ and the court invalidates the entire statute <on its

face,< not erel+ <as applied for< so that the over;road la ;eco es unenforcea;le until a properl+authori!ed court construes it ore narro l+. 3he factor that otivates courts to depart fro the nor aladjudicator+ rules is the concern ith the <chilling/< deterrent effect of the over;road statute on thirdparties not courageous enough to ;ring suit. 3he Court assu es that an over;road la Ks <ver+e6istence a+ cause others not ;efore the court to refrain fro constitutionall+ protected speech ore6pression.< &n over;readth ruling is designed to re ove that deterrent effect on the speech of thosethird parties.

In other ords, a facial challenge using the over;readth doctrine ill re7uire the Court to e6a ine 55$=$* and pinpoint its fla s and defects, not on the ;asis of its actual operation to petitioners, ;ut on theassu ption or prediction that its ver+ e6istence a+ cause ot'%(s +ot >%&o(% t'% Cou(tto refrain froconstitutionall+ protected speech or e6pression. In Ioun(er v. Harris ,$=( it as held that"

Page | 30



















G3Hhe task of anal+!ing a proposed statute, pinpointing its deficiencies, and re7uiring correction of thesedeficiencies ;efore the statute is put into effect, is rarel+ if ever an appropriate task for the judiciar+. 3heco ;ination of the (%= t*<% (% ot%+%ss o& t'% -o+t(o<%(s2, the * -t o+ t'% =%g*s= t*<% (o-%so& t'% (%=*%& soug't, and a;ove all t'% s %-u= t*<% +$ o( 'ous + tu(% o& t'% (% u*(%$ =*+%=*+% + =2s*s o& $%t *=%$ st tut%s,...ordinaril+ results in a kind of case that is @'o==2u+s t*s& -to(2 for deciding constitutional 7uestions, hichever a+ the+ ight ;e decided.

&nd third, a facial challenge on the ground of over;readth is the ost difficult challenge to ountsuccessfull+, since the challenger ust esta;lish that t'%(% - + >% +o *+st +-% @'%+ t'% ss *=%$

= @ 2 >% < =*$. ?ere, petitioners did not even atte pt to sho hether this situation e6ists.5etitioners like ise seek a facial revie of 55 $=$* on the ground of vagueness. 3his, too, isun arranted.

Related to the <over;readth< doctrine is the <void for vagueness doctrine< hich holds that < = @ *s& -* ==2 *+< =*$ *& %+ o& -o o+ *+t%==*g%+-% ust +%-%ss (*=2 gu%ss t *ts % +*+g

s to *ts =*- t*o+.<$$= It is su;ject to the sa e principles governing over;readth doctrine. or one, itis also an anal+tical tool for testing <on their faces< st tut%s *+ &(%% s %%-' - s%s. &nd likeover;readth, it is said that a litigant a+ challenge a statute on its face onl+ if it is < gu% *+ == *ts

oss*>=% =*- t*o+s. Ag *+, %t*t*o+%(s $*$ +ot %<%+ tt% t to s'o@ t' t 1017 *s < gu== *ts =*- t*o+.3he+ also failed to esta;lish that en of co on intelligence cannot understand

the eaning and application of 55 $=$*.

>. Co+st*tut*o+ = B s*s o& 1017No on the constitutional foundation of 55 $=$*.

3he operative portion of 55 $=$* a+ ;e divided into three i portant provisions, thus"

#irst pro!ision:

<;+ virtue of the po er vested upon e ;+ Section $), &rtilce VII do here;+ co and the &r edorces of the 5hilippines, to aintain la and order throughout the 5hilippines, prevent or suppress all

for s of la less violence as ell an+ act of insurrection or re;ellion<

Second pro!ision:

<and to enforce o;edience to all the la s and to all decrees, orders and regulations pro ulgated ;+ e

personall+ or upon + direction/<%ird pro!ision:

<as provided in Section $*, &rticle II of the Constitution do here;+ declare a State of NationalE ergenc+.<

#irst Pro!ision: &alling-out Power

3he first provision pertains to the 5residentKs calling-out po er. In $anla)as v. Aecutive$ecretary ,$$$ this Court, through 4r. :ustice Dante O. 3inga, held that Section $), &rticle VII of theConstitution reproduced as follo s"

S%-. 18. 3he 5resident shall ;e the Co ander-in-Chief of all ar ed forces of the 5hilippinesand @'%+%<%( *t >%-o %s +%-%ss (2, '% 2 - == out su-' ( %$ &o(-%s to (%<%+t o( su (%= @=%ss <*o=%+-%, *+< s*o+ o( (%>%==*o+. In case of invasion or re;ellion, hen the pu;lic safet+re7uires it, he a+, for a period not e6ceeding si6t+ da+s, suspend the privilege of the rit of habeascorpus or place the 5hilippines or an+ part thereof under artial la . Aithin fort+-eight hours fro theprocla ation of artial la or the suspension of the privilege of the rit of habeas corpus , the5resident shall su; it a report in person or in riting to the Congress. 3he Congress, voting jointl+, ;+a vote of at least a ajorit+ of all its 4e ;ers in regular or special session, a+ revoke suchprocla ation or suspension, hich revocation shall not ;e set aside ;+ the 5resident. >pon theinitiative of the 5resident, the Congress a+, in the sa e anner, e6tend such procla ation orsuspension for a period to ;e deter ined ;+ the Congress, if the invasion or re;ellion shall persist andpu;lic safet+ re7uires it.

Page | 31







3he Congress, if not in session, shall ithin t ent+-four hours follo ing such procla ation orsuspension, convene in accordance ith its rules ithout need of a call.

3he Supre e Court a+ revie , in an appropriate proceeding filed ;+ an+ citi!en, the sufficienc+ of thefactual ;ases of the procla ation of artial la or the suspension of the privilege of the rit or thee6tension thereof, and ust pro ulgate its decision thereon ithin thirt+ da+s fro its filing.

& state of artial la does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative asse ;lies, nor authori!e the confer ent of jurisdiction on ilitar+ courtsand agencies over civilians here civil courts are a;le to function, nor auto aticall+ suspend theprivilege of the rit.3he suspension of the privilege of the rit shall appl+ onl+ to persons judiciall+ charged for re;ellion oroffenses inherent in or directl+ connected ith invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the rit, an+ person thus arrested or detained shall ;e judiciall+ charged ithin three da+s, other ise he shall ;e released.

grants the 5resident, as Co ander-in-Chief, a <se7uence< of graduated po ers. ro the ost to theleast ;enign, these are" the calling-out po er, the po er to suspend the privilege of the rit of habeascorpus , and the po er to declare 4artial @a . Citing nte(rated *ar of the hilippines v. amora ,$$0 theCourt ruled that the onl+ criterion for the e6ercise of the calling-out po er is that < @'%+%<%( *t>%-o %s +%-%ss (2,< the 5resident a+ call the ar ed forces < to (%<%+t o( su (%ss = @=%ss

<*o=%+-%, *+< s*o+ o( (%>%==*o+.< !re these conditions present in the instant cases L &s stated earlier,considering the circu stances then prevailing, 5resident &rro+o found it necessar+ to issue 55 $=$*.O ing to her OfficeKs vast intelligence net ork, she is in the ;est position to deter ine the actualcondition of the countr+.

>nder the calling-out po er, the 5resident a+ su on the ar ed forces to aid hi insuppressing = @=%ss <*o=%+-%, *+< s*o+ +$ (%>%==*o+. 3his involves ordinar+ police action. 8ut ever+act that goes ;e+ond the 5residentKs calling-out po er is considered illegal or ultra vires . or thisreason, a 5resident ust ;e careful in the e6ercise of his po ers. ?e cannot invoke a greater po er

hen he ishes to act under a lesser po er. 3here lies the isdo of our Constitution, the greater thepo er, the greater are the li itations.

It is pertinent to state, ho ever, that there is a distinction ;et een the 5residentKs authorit+ to declare a<state of re;ellion< #in $anla)as % and the authorit+ to proclai a state of national e ergenc+. Ahile5resident &rro+oKs authorit+ to declare a <state of re;ellion< e anates fro her po ers as ChiefE6ecutive, the statutor+ authorit+ cited in $anla)as as Section 2, Chapter 0, 8ook II of the Revised

&d inistrative Code of $()*, hich provides"

SEC. 2. J 5rocla ations. J &cts of the 5resident fi6ing a date or declaring a status or condition ofpu;lic o ent or interest, upon the e6istence of hich the operation of a specific la or regulation is

ade to depend, shall ;e pro ulgated in procla ations hich shall have the force of an e6ecutiveorder.

5resident &rro+oKs declaration of a <state of re;ellion< as erel+ an act declaring a status or conditionof pu;lic o ent or interest, a declaration allo ed under Section 2 cited a;ove. Such declaration, inthe ords of $anla)as , is har less, ithout legal significance, and dee ed not ritten. In these cases,55 $=$* is ore than that. In declaring a state of national e ergenc+, 5resident &rro+o did not onl+rel+ on Section $), &rticle VII of the Constitution, a provision calling on the & 5 to prevent or suppressla less violence, invasion or re;ellion. She also relied on Section $*, &rticle II, a provision on theStateKs e6traordinar+ po er to take over privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ and ;usiness affected ith pu;licinterest. Indeed, 55 $=$* calls for the e6ercise of an @%so % o@%( . O;viousl+, such 5rocla ationcannot ;e dee ed har less, ithout legal significance, or not ritten, as in the case of $anla)as .

So e of the petitioners vehe entl+ aintain that 55 $=$* is actuall+ a declaration of 4artial @a . It isno so. Ahat defines the character of 55 $=$* are its ordings. It is plain therein that hat the 5residentinvoked as her calling-out po er.

3he declaration of 4artial @a is a < arnGingH to citi!ens that the ilitar+ po er has ;een called upon;+ the e6ecutive to assist in the aintenance of la and order, and that, hile the e ergenc+ lasts,

Page | 32






the+ ust, upon pain of arrest and punish ent, not co it an+ acts hich ill in an+ a+ render oredifficult the restoration of order and the enforce ent of la .< $$1

In his <$tatement before the $enate Committee on Justice < on 4arch $1, 0== , 4r. :ustice Vicente V.4endo!a, $$2 an authorit+ in constitutional la , said that of the three po ers of the 5resident asCo ander-in-Chief, the po er to declare 4artial @a poses the ost severe threat to civil li;erties. Itis a strong edicine hich should not ;e resorted to lightl+. It cannot ;e used to stifle or persecutecritics of the govern ent. It is placed in the keeping of the 5resident for the purpose of ena;ling hi tosecure the people fro har and to restore order so that the+ can enjo+ their individual freedo s. In

fact, Section $), &rt. VII, provides" & state of artial la does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative asse ;lies, nor authori!e the confer ent of jurisdiction on ilitar+ courtsand agencies over civilians here civil courts are a;le to function, nor auto aticall+ suspend theprivilege of the rit.

:ustice 4endo!a also stated that 55 $=$* is not a declaration of 4artial @a . It is no ore than a call;+ the 5resident to the ar ed forces to prevent or suppress la less violence. &s such, it cannot ;eused to justif+ acts that onl+ under a valid declaration of 4artial @a can ;e done. Its use for an+ otherpurpose is a perversion of its nature and scope, and an+ act done contrar+ to its co and is ultravires .

:ustice 4endo!a further stated that specificall+, #a% arrests and sei!ures ithout judicial arrants/ #;%;an on pu;lic asse ;lies/ #c% take-over of ne s edia and agencies and press censorship/ and #d%issuance of 5residential Decrees, are po ers hich can ;e e6ercised ;+ the 5resident as Co ander-in-Chief o+=2 here there is a valid declaration of 4artial @a or suspension of the rit of habeascorpus .

8ased on the a;ove dis7uisition, it is clear that 55 $=$* is not a declaration of 4artial @a . It *s %(%=+ % %(-*s% o& (%s*$%+t A((o2oHs - ==*+g out o@%( for the ar ed forces to assist her in preventing

or suppressing la less violence.

Second Pro!ision: / a0e &are/ Power

3he second provision pertains to the po er of the 5resident to ensure that the la s ;e faithfull+e6ecuted. 3his is ;ased on Section $*, &rticle VII hich reads"

SEC. 17 . 3he 5resident shall have control of all the e6ecutive depart ents, ;ureaus, and offices. "%s' == %+su(% t' t t'% = @s >% & *t'&u==2 % %-ut%$.

&s the E6ecutive in ho the e6ecutive po er is vested, $$' the pri ar+ function of the 5resident is toenforce the la s as ell as to for ulate policies to ;e e ;odied in e6isting la s. ?e sees to it that allla s are enforced ;+ the officials and e plo+ees of his depart ent. 8efore assu ing office, he isre7uired to take an oath or affir ation to the effect that as 5resident of the 5hilippines, he ill, a ongothers, <e6ecute its la s.< $$ In the e6ercise of such function, the 5resident, if needed, a+ e plo+ thepo ers attached to his office as the Co ander-in-Chief of all the ar ed forces of thecountr+ ,$$* including the 5hilippine National 5olice $$) under the Depart ent of Interior and @ocalBovern ent .$$(

5etitioners, especiall+ Representatives rancis :oseph B. Escudero, Satur Oca po, Rafael 4ariano,

3eodoro CasiPo, @i!a 4a!a, and :osel Virador argue that 55 $=$* is unconstitutional as it arrogatedupon 5resident &rro+o the po er to enact la s and decrees in violation of Section $, &rticle VI of theConstitution, hich vests the po er to enact la s in Congress. 3he+ assail the clause < to %+&o(-%o>%$*%+-% to == t'% = @s +$ to == $%-(%%s, o($%(s +$ (%gu= t*o+s (o u=g t%$ >2 %

%(so+ ==2 o( u o+ 2 $*(%-t*o+.<

5etitionersK contention is understanda;le. & reading of 55 $=$* operative clause sho s that it aslifted$0= fro or er 5resident 4arcosK 5rocla ation No. $=)$, hich partl+ reads"

NO , T"ERE)ORE, I, )ERDINAND E. !ARCOS , 5resident of the 5hilippines ;+ virtue of the po ersvested upon e ;+ &rticle VII, Section $=, 5aragraph #0% of the Constitution, do here;+ place the entire

Page | 33






















5hilippines as defined in &rticle $, Section $ of the Constitution under artial la and, in + capacit+ astheir Co ander-in-Chief, $o '%(%>2 -o +$ t'% A( %$ )o(-%s o& t'% '*=* *+%s, to *+t *+= @ +$ o($%( t'(oug'out t'% '*=* *+%s, (%<%+t o( su (%ss == &o( s o& = @=%ss <*o=%@%== s +2 -t o& *+su((%-t*o+ o( (%>%==*o+ +$ to %+&o(-% o>%$*%+-% to == t'% = @so($%(s +$ (%gu= t*o+s (o u=g t%$ >2 % %(so+ ==2 o( u o+ 2 $*(%-t*o+.Ae all kno that it as 55 $=)$ hich granted 5resident 4arcos legislative po er. Its ena;ling clausestates" Kto %+&o(-% o>%$*%+-% to == t'% = @s +$ $%-(%%s, o($%(s +$ (%gu= t*o+s (o u>2 % %(so+ ==2 o( u o+ 2 $*(%-t*o+.K >pon the other hand, the ena;ling clause of 55 $=$*

issued ;+ 5resident &rro+o is" to %+&o(-% o>%$*%+-% to == t'% = @s +$to all $%-(%%s, o($%(s +$(%gu= t*o+s (o u=g t%$ >2 % %(so+ ==2 o( u o+ 2 $*(%-t*o+.<

s it %ithin the domain of resident !rroyo to promul(ate 9 decrees 9

55 $=$* states in part" <to enforce o;edience to all the la s and $%-(%%s6 6 6 (o u=g t%$ >2 %%(so+ ==2 o( u o+ 2 $*(%-t*o+.<

3he 5resident is granted an Ordinance 5o er under Chapter 0, 8ook III of E6ecutive Order No. 0(0#&d inistrative Code of $()*%. She a+ issue an+ of the follo ing"

Sec. 0. Aecutive +rders . F &cts of the 5resident providing for rules of a general or per anentcharacter in i ple entation or e6ecution of constitutional or statutor+ po ers shall ;e pro ulgated ine6ecutive orders.

Sec. 1. !dministrative +rders . F &cts of the 5resident hich relate to particular aspect of govern entaloperations in pursuance of his duties as ad inistrative head shall ;e pro ulgated in ad inistrativeorders.

Sec. 2. roclamations . F &cts of the 5resident fi6ing a date or declaring a status or condition of pu;lico ent or interest, upon the e6istence of hich the operation of a specific la or regulation is ade to

depend, shall ;e pro ulgated in procla ations hich shall have the force of an e6ecutive order.

Sec. '. Memorandum +rders . F &cts of the 5resident on atters of ad inistrative detail or ofsu;ordinate or te porar+ interest hich onl+ concern a particular officer or office of the Bovern entshall ;e e ;odied in e orandu orders.

Sec. . Memorandum Circulars . F &cts of the 5resident on atters relating to internal ad inistration,hich the 5resident desires to ;ring to the attention of all or so e of the depart ents, agencies,

;ureaus or offices of the Bovern ent, for infor ation or co pliance, shall ;e e ;odied ine orandu circulars.

Sec. *. General or $pecial +rders . F &cts and co ands of the 5resident in his capacit+ asCo ander-in-Chief of the &r ed orces of the 5hilippines shall ;e issued as general or specialorders.

5resident &rro+oKs ordinance po er is li ited to the foregoing issuances. She cannotissue $%-(%%s si ilar to those issued ;+ or er 5resident 4arcos under 55 $=)$. 5residentialDecrees are la s hich are of the sa e categor+ and ;inding force as statutes ;ecause the+ ereissued ;+ the 5resident in the e6ercise of his legislative po er during the period of 4artial @a underthe $(*1 Constitution. $0$

T'*s Cou(t (u=%s t' t t'% ss *=%$ 1017 *s u+-o+st*tut*o+ = *+so& ( s *t g( +ts (%s*$%+tA((o2o t'% ut'o(*t2 to (o u=g t% K$%-(%%s.K @egislative po er is peculiarl+ ithin the province ofthe @egislature. Section $, &rticle VI categoricall+ states that < t '% =%g*s= t*<% o@%( s' == >% <*+ t'% Co+g(%ss o& t'% '*=* *+%s @'*-' s' == -o+s*st o& S%+ t% +$ "ous% o&R% (%s%+t t*<%s.< 3o ;e sure, neither 4artial @a nor a state of re;ellion nor a state of e ergenc+ can

justif+ 5resident &rro+oKs e6ercise of legislative po er ;+ issuing decrees.

Can resident !rroyo enforce obedience to all decrees and la%s throu(h the military L

&s this Court stated earlier, 5resident &rro+o has no authorit+ to enact decrees. It follo s that thesedecrees are void and, therefore, cannot ;e enforced. Aith respect to <la s,< she cannot call the ilitar+to enforce or i ple ent certain la s, such as custo s la s, la s governing fa il+ and propert+

Page | 34





relations, la s on o;ligations and contracts and the like. She can onl+ order the ilitar+, under 55$=$*, to enforce la s pertinent to its dut+ to su (%ss = @=%ss <*o=%+-%.

%ird Pro!ision: Power to a0e +!er

3he pertinent provision of 55 $=$* states"

6 6 6 and to enforce o;edience to all the la s and to all decrees, orders, and regulations pro ulgated;+ e personall+ or upon + direction/ +$ s (o<*$%$ *+ S%-t*o+ 17, A(t*-=% :II o& t'%Co+st*tut*o+ $o '%(%>2 $%-= (% st t% o& + t*o+ = % %(g%+-2.

3he i port of this provision is that 5resident &rro+o, during the state of national e ergenc+ under 55$=$*, can call the ilitar+ not onl+ to enforce o;edience <to all the la s and to all decrees 6 6 6< ;utalso to act pursuant to the provision of Section $*, &rticle II hich reads"

S%-. 17. In ti es of national e ergenc+, hen the pu;lic interest so re7uires, the State a+, during thee ergenc+ and under reasona;le ter s prescri;ed ;+ it, te poraril+ take over or direct the operation of an+ privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ or ;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest.

Fhat could be the reason of resident !rroyo in invo)in( the above provision %hen she issued ?8?@

3he ans er is si ple. During the e6istence of the state of national e ergenc+, 55 $=$* purports togrant the 5resident, ithout an+ authorit+ or delegation fro Congress, to take over or direct the

operation of an+ privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ or ;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest.3his provision as first introduced in the $(*1 Constitution, as a product of the < artial la < thinking ofthe $(*$ Constitutional Convention. $00 In effect at the ti e of its approval as 5resident 4arcosK @etterof Instruction No. 0 dated Septe ;er 00, $(*0 instructing the Secretar+ of National Defense to takeover <the mana(ement, control and operation of the Manila lectric Company, the hilippine Lon(3istance -elephone Company, the >ational Fater%or)s and $e%era(e !uthority, the hilippine>ational Bail%ays, the hilippine !ir Lines, !ir Manila "and# 5ilipinas +rient !ir%ays . . . for thesuccessful prosecution by the Government of its effort to contain, solve and end the present nationalemer(ency. <

5etitioners, particularl+ the e ;ers of the ?ouse of Representatives, clai that 5resident &rro+oKsinclusion of Section $*, &rticle II in 55 $=$* is an encroach ent on the legislatureKs e ergenc+po ers.

3his is an area that needs delineation.

& distinction ust ;e dra n ;et een the 5residentKs authorit+ to $%-= (% <a state of nationale ergenc+< and to % %(-*s% e ergenc+ po ers. 3o the first, as elucidated ;+ the Court, Section $),

&rticle VII grants the 5resident such po er, hence, no legiti ate constitutional o;jection can ;e raised.8ut to the second, anifold constitutional issues arise.

Section 01, &rticle VI of the Constitution reads"

SEC. 53. 1/3he Congress, ;+ a vote of t o-thirds of ;oth ?ouses in joint session asse ;led, votingseparatel+, shall have the so=% o@%( to $%-= (% t'% % *st%+-% o& st t% o& @ ( .

5/In ti es of ar or ot'%( + t*o+ = % %(g%+-2, the Congress a+, ;+ la , authori!e the 5resident,

for a li ited period and su;ject to such restrictions as it a+ prescri;e, to e6ercise po ers necessar+and proper to carr+ out a declared national polic+. >nless sooner ithdra n ;+ resolution of theCongress, such po ers shall cease upon the ne6t adjourn ent thereof.

It a+ ;e pointed out that the second paragraph of the a;ove provision refers not onl+ to ar ;ut alsoto <ot'%( + t*o+ = % %(g%+-2.< If the intention of the ra ers of our Constitution as to ithhold frothe 5resident the authorit+ to declare a <state of national e ergenc+< pursuant to Section $), &rticle VII#calling-out po er% and grant it to Congress #like the declaration of the e6istence of a state of ar%, thenthe ra ers could have provided so. Clearl+, the+ did not intend that Congress should first authori!ethe 5resident ;efore he can declare a <state of national e ergenc+.< 3he logical conclusion then is that5resident &rro+o could validl+ declare the e6istence of a state of national e ergenc+ even in thea;sence of a Congressional enact ent.

Page | 35





8ut the % %(-*s%of e ergenc+ po ers, such as the taking over of privatel+ o ned pu;lic utilit+ or;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest, is a different atter. 3his re7uires a delegation fro Congress.

Courts have often said that constitutional provisions in pari materia are to ;e construed together.Other ise stated, different clauses, sections, and provisions of a constitution hich relate to the sa esu;ject atter ill ;e construed together and considered in the light of each other. $01 Consideringthat Section $* of &rticle II and Section 01 of &rticle VI, previousl+ 7uoted, relate to nationale ergencies, the+ ust ;e read together to deter ine the li itation of the e6ercise of e ergenc+po ers.

G%+%( ==2, Co+g(%ss *s t'% (% os*to(2 o& % %(g%+-2 o@%(s. 3his is evident in the tenor of Section01 #0%, &rticle VI authori!ing it to delegate such po ers to the 5resident. C%(t *+=2, >o$2 - ++ot$%=%g t% o@%( +ot (% os%$ u o+ *t. ?o ever, kno ing that during grave e ergencies, it a+ not;e possi;le or practica;le for Congress to eet and e6ercise its po ers, the ra ers of ourConstitution dee ed it ise to allo Congress to grant e ergenc+ po ers to the 5resident, su;ject tocertain conditions, thus"

1/ 3here ust ;e a @ ( or ot'%( % %(g%+-2.5/ 3he delegation ust ;e for a =* *t%$ %(*o$ o+=2.

3/ 3he delegation ust ;e su>?%-t to su-' (%st(*-t*o+s s t'% Co+g(%ss 2 (%s-(*>% .

/ 3he e ergenc+ po ers ust ;e e6ercised to - ((2 out + t*o+ = o=*-2 declared ;+Congress. $02

Section $*, &rticle II ust ;e understood as an aspect of the e ergenc+ po ers clause. 3he takingover of private ;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest is just another facet of the e ergenc+ po ersgenerall+ reposed upon Congress. 3hus, hen Section $* states that the < t'% St t% 2, $u(*+g t'%% %(g%+-2 +$ u+$%( (% so+ >=% t%( s (%s-(*>%$ >2 *t, t% o( (*=2 t % o<%( o( $*(%-to %( t*o+ o& +2 (*< t%=2 o@+%$ u>=*- ut*=*t2 o( >us*+%ss &&%-t%$ @*t' u>=*- *+t%,< it refersto Congress, not the 5resident. No , hether or not the 5resident a+ e6ercise such po er isdependent on hether Congress a+ delegate it to hi pursuant to a la prescri;ing the reasona;leter s thereof. Ioun(sto%n $heet K -ube Co. et al. v. $a%yer ,$0' held"

It is clear that if the 5resident had authorit+ to issue the order he did, it ust ;e found in so e provisionof the Constitution. &nd it is not clai ed that e6press constitutional language grants this po er to the

5resident. 3he contention is that presidential po er should ;e i plied fro the aggregate of his po ersunder the Constitution. 5articular reliance is placed on provisions in &rticle II hich sa+ that <3hee6ecutive 5o er shall ;e vested in a 5resident . . . ./< that <he shall take Care that the @a s ;e faithfull+e6ecuted/< and that he <shall ;e Co ander-in-Chief of the &r + and Nav+ of the >nited States.

3he order cannot properl+ ;e sustained as an e6ercise of the 5residentKs ilitar+ po er asCo ander-in-Chief of the &r ed orces. 3he Bovern ent atte pts to do so ;+ citing a nu ;er ofcases upholding ;road po ers in ilitar+ co anders engaged in da+-to-da+ fighting in a theater of

ar. Such cases need not concern us here. E<%+ t'oug' Kt'% t%( o& @ (K >% + % +$*+g -o+-@% - ++ot @*t' & *t'&u=+%ss to ou( -o+st*tut*o+ = s2st% 'o=$ t' t t'% Co +$%( *+ C'*%&t'% A( %$ )o(-%s ' s t'% u=t* t% o@%( s su-' to t % oss%ss*o+ o& (*< t% (o %(t2 *+o($%( to %% = >o( $*s ut%s &(o sto *+g (o$u-t*o+. T'*s *s ?o> &o( t'% + t*o+Hs = @+ot &o( *ts *=*t (2 ut'o(*t*%s.No( - + t'% s%* u(% o($%( >% sust *+%$ >%- us% o& t'% s%<%( = -o+st*tut*o+ = (o<*s*o+s g( +t % %-ut*<% o@%( to t'% (%s*$%+t. I+ t'% &( %@o( o& ou( Co+st*tut*o+, t'% (%s*$%

o@%( to s%% t' t t'% = @s (% & *t'&u==2 % %-ut%$ (%&ut%s t'% *$% t' t '% *s to >% = @ %(. T'% Co+st*tut*o+ =* *ts '*s &u+-t*o+s *+ t'% = @ *+g (o-%ss to t'% (%-o %+$*+o& = @s '% t'*+ s @*s% +$ t'% <%to*+g o& = @s '% t'*+ s > $. A+$ t'% Co+st*tut*o+ *s +%*t's*=%+t +o( % u*<o- = >out @'o s' == % = @s @'*-' t'% (%s*$%+t *s to % %-ut%. T'% &*s%-t*o+ o& t'% &*(st (t*-=% s 2s t' t KA== =%g*s= t*<% o@%(s '%(%*+ g( +t%$ s' == >% <Co+g(%ss o& t'% U+*t%$ St t%s. . .<$0

5etitioner Cacho4+livares , et al. contends that the ter <e ergenc+< under Section $*, &rticle II refersto <tsu+ * ,< <t2 'oo+, < <'u((*- +%<and<s* *= ( o--u((%+-%s.< 3his is a li ited vie of <e ergenc+.<

Page | 36













E ergenc+, as a generic ter , connotes the e6istence of conditions suddenl+ intensif+ing the degree of e6isting danger to life or ell-;eing ;e+ond that hich is accepted as nor al. I plicit in this definitionsare the ele ents of intensit+, variet+, and perception. $0* E ergencies, as perceived ;+ legislature ore6ecutive in the >nited Sates since $(11, have ;een occasioned ;+ a ide range of situations,classifia;le under three #1% principal heads" /%-o+o *-,$0) >/ + tu( = $*s st%( ,$0( and -/ + t*o+ =s%-u(*t2.$1=

<E ergenc+,< as conte plated in our Constitution, is of the sa e ;readth. It a+ include re;ellion,econo ic crisis, pestilence or epide ic, t+phoon, flood, or other si ilar catastrophe of nation ide

proportions or effect.$1$

3his is evident in the Records of the Constitutional Co ission, thus"4R. B&SCON. es. Ahat is the Co itteeKs definition of <national e ergenc+< hich appears inSection $1, page 'L It reads"

Ahen the co on good so re7uires, the State a+ te poraril+ take over or direct the operation of an+privatel+ o ned pu;lic utilit+ or ;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest.

4R. VI@@EB&S. Ahat I ean is threat fro % t%(+ = gg(%ss*o+, for e6a ple, - = *t*%s or + tu( =$*s st%(s.4R. B&SCON. 3here is a 7uestion ;+ Co issioner de los Re+es. Ahat a;out strikes and riotsL

4R. VI@@EB&S. Strikes, no/ those ould not ;e covered ;+ the ter <national e ergenc+.<

4R. 8ENBMON. >nless the+ are of such proportions such that the+ ould paral+!e govern entservice. $10

6 6 6 6 6 6

4R. 3INBSON. 4a+ I ask the co ittee if <national e ergenc+< refers to *=*t (2 + t*o+ =% %(g%+-2 or could this ;e %-o+o *- % %(g%+-2L<

4R. VI@@EB&S. es, it could refer to >ot' *=*t (2 o( %-o+o *- $*s=o- t*o+s.4R. 3INBSON. 3hank +ou ver+ uch. $11

It a+ ;e argued that hen there is national e ergenc+, Congress a+ not ;e a;le to convene and,therefore, una;le to delegate to the 5resident the po er to take over privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ or;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest.

In !raneta v. 3in(lasan ,$12 this Court e phasi!ed that legislative po er, through hich e6traordinar+easures are e6ercised, re ains in Congress even in ti es of crisis.

<6 6 6

&fter all the criticis s that have ;een ade against the efficienc+ of the s+ste of the separation ofpo ers, the fact re ains that the Constitution has set up this for of govern ent, ith all its defectsand shortco ings, in preference to the co ingling of po ers in one an or group of en. 3he

ilipino people ;+ adopting parlia entar+ govern ent have given notice that the+ share the faith ofother de ocrac+-loving peoples in this s+ste , ith all its faults, as the ideal. 3he point is, under thisfra e ork of govern ent, legislation is preserved for Congress all the ti e, not e6cepting periods ofcrisis no atter ho serious. Never in the histor+ of the >nited States, the ;asic features of hoseConstitution have ;een copied in ours, have specific functions of the legislative ;ranch of enacting la s;een surrendered to another depart ent J unless e regard as legislating the carr+ing out of alegislative polic+ according to prescri;ed standards/ no, not even hen that Repu;lic as fighting atotal ar, or hen it as engaged in a life-and-death struggle to preserve the >nion. 3he truth is thatunder our concept of constitutional govern ent, in ti es of e6tre e perils ore than in nor alcircu stances Qthe various ;ranches, e6ecutive, legislative, and judicial,K given the a;ilit+ to act, arecalled upon Qto perfor the duties and discharge the responsi;ilities co itted to the respectivel+.<

ollo ing our interpretation of Section $*, &rticle II, invoked ;+ 5resident &rro+o in issuing 55 $=$*,this Court rules that such 5rocla ation does not authori!e her during the e ergenc+ to te poraril+take over or direct the operation of an+ privatel+ o ned pu;lic utilit+ or ;usiness affected ith pu;licinterest ithout authorit+ fro Congress.

Page | 37





















@et it ;e e phasi!ed that hile the 5resident alone can declare a state of national e ergenc+,ho ever, ithout legislation, he has no po er to take over privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ or ;usinessaffected ith pu;lic interest. 3he 5resident cannot decide hether e6ceptional circu stances e6ist

arranting the take over of privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ or ;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest. Norcan he deter ine hen such e6ceptional circu stances have ceased. @ike ise, @*t'out=%g*s= t*o+, the 5resident has no po er to point out the t+pes of ;usinesses affected ith pu;licinterest that should ;e taken over. In short, the 5resident has no a;solute authorit+ to e6ercise all thepo ers of the State under Section $*, &rticle VII in the a;sence of an e ergenc+ po ers act passed ;+Congress.

-. KAS A LIED C"ALLENGEKOne of the isfortunes of an e ergenc+, particularl+, that hich pertains to securit+, is that ilitar+necessit+ and the guaranteed rights of the individual are often not co pati;le. Our histor+ reveals thatin the cruci;le of conflict, an+ rights are curtailed and tra pled upon. ?ere, the (*g't g *+stu+(% so+ >=% s% (-' +$ s%* u(% t'% (*g't g *+st @ (( +t=%ss ((%st and t'% &(%%$o o&s %%-', o& % (%ss*o+, o& t'% (%ss, +$ o& ss% >=2under the 8ill of Rights suffered the greatest;lo .

Of the seven #*% petitions, three #1% indicate <direct injur+.<

In G.R. No. 17139 , petitioners David and @la as alleged that, on e;ruar+ 02, 0== , the+ erearrested ithout arrants on their a+ to EDS& to cele;rate the 0=th &nniversar+ of eople o%er

. 3he arresting officers cited 55 $=$* as ;asis of the arrest.In G.R. No. 171 09, petitioners Cacho-Olivares and -ribune 5u;lishing Co., Inc. clai ed that on

e;ruar+ 0', 0== , the CIDB operatives <raided and ransacked ithout arrant< their office. 3hreepolice en ere assigned to guard their office as a possi;le <source of desta;ili!ation.< &gain, the ;asis

as 55 $=$*.

&nd in G.R. No. 171 83, petitioners 4> and N& @>- 4> et al. alleged that their e ;ers ere<turned a a+ and dispersed< hen the+ ent to EDS& and later, to &+ala &venue, to cele;rate the 0=th

&nniversar+ of eople o%er .

& perusal of the <direct injuries< allegedl+ suffered ;+ the said petitioners sho s that the+ resulted frothe * =% %+t t*o+, pursuant to B.O. No. ', of 55 $=$*.

Can this Court adjud(e as unconstitutional ?8?@ and G.+. >o ' on the basis of these ille(al acts Ingeneral, does the ille(al implementation of a la% render it unconstitutional

Settled is the rule that courts are not at li;ert+ to declare statutes invalid =t'oug' t'%2 2 >%>us%$ +$ *s >us%$$1' and 2 &&o($ + o o(tu+*t2 &o( >us% *+ t'% ++%( o&

=*- t*o+.$1 3he validit+ of a statute or ordinance is to ;e deter ined fro its general purpose andits efficienc+ to acco plish the end desired, +ot &(o *ts %&&%-ts *+ (t*-u= ( - s%.$1* 55 $=$* is

erel+ an invocation of the 5residentKs calling-out po er. Its general purpose is to co and the & 5 tosuppress all for s of la less violence, invasion or re;ellion. It had acco plished the end desired hichpro pted 5resident &rro+o to issue 55 $=0$. 8ut there is nothing in 55 $=$* allo ing the police,e6pressl+ or i pliedl+, to conduct illegal arrest, search or violate the citi!ensK constitutional rights.

No , a+ this Court adjudge a la or ordinance unconstitutional on the ground that its i ple entor

co itted illegal actsL 3he ans er is no. 3he criterion ;+ hich the validit+ of the statute or ordinanceis to ;e easured is the essential ;asis for the e6ercise of po er, +$ +ot %(% *+-*$%+t = (%su=(*s*+g &(o *ts % %(t*o+.$1) 3his is logical. :ust i agine the a;surdit+ of situations hen la s a+;e

declared unconstitutional just ;ecause the officers i ple enting the have acted ar;itraril+. If this ereso, judging fro the ;lunders co itted ;+ police en in the cases passed upon ;+ the Court, ajorit+of the provisions of the Revised 5enal Code ould have ;een declared unconstitutional a long ti eago.

5resident &rro+o issued B.O. No. ' to carr+ into effect the provisions of 55 $=$*. Beneral orders are<acts and co ands of the 5resident in his capacit+ as Co ander-in-Chief of the &r ed orces ofthe 5hilippines.< 3he+ are internal rules issued ;+ the e6ecutive officer to his su;ordinates precisel+ forthe (o %( and %&&*-*%+t $ *+*st( t*o+ o& = @. Such rules and regulations create no relation e6cept

Page | 38













;et een the official ho issues the and the official ho receives the .$1( 3he+ are ;ased on and arethe product of, a relationship in hich po er is their source, and o;edience, their o;ject. $2= or thesereasons, one re7uire ent for these rules to ;e valid is that the+ ust ;e (% so+ >=%, +ot (>*t( (2 o- (*-*ous.B.O. No. ' andates the & 5 and the 5N5 to i ediatel+ carr+ out the < +%-%ss (2 +$ (o (* t%

-t*o+s +$ % su(%s to su (%ss +$ (%<%+t -ts o& t%((o(*s +$ = @=%ssviolence.<

>nlike the ter <la less violence< hich is unargua;l+ e6tant in our statutes and the Constitution, andhich is invaria;l+ associated ith <invasion, insurrection or re;ellion,< the phrase <acts of terroris < is

still an a orphous and vague concept. Congress has +et to enact a la defining and punishing acts ofterroris .

In fact, this <definitional predica ent< or the <a;sence of an agreed definition of terroris < confronts notonl+ our countr+, ;ut the international co unit+ as ell. 3he follo ing o;servations are 7uite apropos"

In the actual unipolar conte6t of international relations, the <fight against terroris < has ;eco e one ofthe ;asic slogans hen it co es to the justification of the use of force against certain states andagainst groups operating internationall+. @ists of states <sponsoring terroris < and of terroristorgani!ations are set up and constantl+ ;eing updated according to criteria that are not al a+s kno nto the pu;lic, ;ut are clearl+ deter ined ;+ strategic interests.

3he ;asic pro;le underl+ing all these ilitar+ actions J or threats of the use of force as the ost

recent ;+ the >nited States against Ira7 J consists in the a;sence of an agreed definition of terroris .Re arka;le confusion persists in regard to the legal categori!ation of acts of violence either ;+ states,;+ ar ed groups such as li;eration ove ents, or ;+ individuals.

3he dile a can ;+ su ari!ed in the sa+ing <One countr+Ks terrorist is another countr+Ks freedofighter.< 3he apparent contradiction or lack of consistenc+ in the use of the ter <terroris < a+ further;e de onstrated ;+ the historical fact that leaders of national li;eration ove ents such as Nelson4andela in South &frica, ?a;i; 8ourgoui;a in 3unisia, or &h ed 8en 8ella in &lgeria, to ention onl+ afe , ere originall+ la;eled as terrorists ;+ those ho controlled the territor+ at the ti e, ;ut later;eca e internationall+ respected states en.

Ahat, then, is the defining criterion for terrorist acts J the differentia specifica distinguishing those actsfro eventuall+ legiti ate acts of national resistance or self-defenseL

Since the ti es of the Cold Aar the >nited Nations Organi!ation has ;een tr+ing in vain to reach aconsensus on the ;asic issue of definition. 3he organi!ation has intensified its efforts recentl+, ;ut has;een una;le to ;ridge the gap ;et een those ho associate <terroris < ith an+ violent act ;+ non-state groups against civilians, state functionaries or infrastructure or ilitar+ installations, and those

ho ;elieve in the concept of the legiti ate use of force hen resistance against foreign occupation oragainst s+ste atic oppression of ethnic and or religious groups ithin a state is concerned.

3he dile a facing the international co unit+ can ;est ;e illustrated ;+ reference to the contradictingcategori!ation of organi!ations and ove ents such as 5alestine @i;eration Organi!ation #5@O% J

hich is a terrorist group for Israel and a li;eration ove ent for &ra;s and 4usli s J the ash iriresistance groups J ho are terrorists in the perception of India, li;eration fighters in that of 5akistan Jthe earlier Contras in Nicaragua J freedo fighters for the >nited States, terrorists for the Socialist

ca p J or, ost drasticall+, the &fghani 4ujahedeen #later to ;eco e the 3ali;an ove ent%" duringthe Cold Aar period the+ ere a group of freedo fighters for the Aest, nurtured ;+ the >nited States,and a terrorist gang for the Soviet >nion. One could go on and on in enu erating e6a ples ofconflicting categori!ations that cannot ;e reconciled in an+ a+ J ;ecause of opposing politicalinterests that are at the roots of those perceptions.

?o , then, can those contradicting definitions and conflicting perceptions and evaluations of one andthe sa e group and its actions ;e e6plainedL In our anal+sis, the ;asic reason for these strikinginconsistencies lies in the divergent interest of states. Depending on hether a state is in the position of an occup+ing po er or in that of a rival, or adversar+, of an occup+ing po er in a given territor+, thedefinition of terroris ill <fluctuate< accordingl+. & state a+ eventuall+ see itself as protector of the

Page | 39









rights of a certain ethnic group outside its territor+ and ill therefore speak of a <li;eration struggle,< notof <terroris < hen acts of violence ;+ this group are concerned, and vice-versa.

3he >nited Nations Organi!ation has ;een una;le to reach a decision on the definition of terrorise6actl+ ;ecause of these conflicting interests of sovereign states that deter ine in each and ever+instance ho a particular ar ed ove ent #i.e. a non-state actor% is la;eled in regard to the terrorists-freedo fighter dichoto +. & <polic+ of dou;le standards< on this vital issue of international affairs has;een the unavoida;le conse7uence.

3his <definitional predica ent< of an organi!ation consisting of sovereign states J and not of peoples, inspite of the e phasis in the 5rea ;le to the >nited Nations CharterT J has ;eco e even ore seriousin the present glo;al po er constellation" one superpo er e6ercises the decisive role in the Securit+Council, for er great po ers of the Cold Aar era as ell as ediu po ers are increasingl+ ;eing

arginali!ed/ and the pro;le has ;eco e even ore acute since the terrorist attacks of $$Septe ;er 0==$ I the >nited States. $2$

3he a;sence of a la defining <acts of terroris < a+ result in a;use and oppression on the part of thepolice or ilitar+. &n illustration is hen a group of persons are erel+ engaged in a drinking spree. etthe ilitar+ or the police a+ consider the act as an act of terroris and i ediatel+ arrest thepursuant to B.O. No. '. O;viousl+, this is a;use and oppression on their part. It ust ;e re e ;eredthat an act can onl+ ;e considered a cri e if there is a la defining the sa e as such and i posing thecorresponding penalt+ thereon.

So far, the ord <terroris < appears onl+ once in our cri inal la s, i.e., in 5.D. No. $)1' dated :anuar+$ , $()$ enacted ;+ 5resident 4arcos during the 4artial @a regi e. 3his decree is entitled <Codif+ing3he Various @a s on &nti-Su;version and Increasing 3he 5enalties for 4e ;ership in Su;versiveOrgani!ations.< 3he ord <terroris < is entioned in the follo ing provision" <3hat one ho conspires

ith an+ other person for the purpose of overthro ing the Bovern ent of the 5hilippines 6 6 6 ;+ force,violence, t%((o(*s , 6 6 6 shall ;e punished ;+ reclusion temporal 6 6 6.<

5.D. No. $)1' as repealed ;+ E.O. No. $ * # hich outla s the Co unist 5art+ of the 5hilippines%enacted ;+ 5resident Cora!on &7uino on 4a+ ', $()'. 3hese t o #0% la s, ho ever, do not define<acts of terroris .< Since there is no la defining <acts of terroris ,< it is 5resident &rro+o alone, underB.O. No. ', ho has the discretion to deter ine hat acts constitute terroris . ?er judg ent on thisaspect is a;solute, ithout restrictions. Conse7uentl+, there can ;e indiscri inate arrest ithout

arrants, ;reaking into offices and residences, taking over the edia enterprises, prohi;ition anddispersal of all asse ;lies and gatherings unfriendl+ to the ad inistration. &ll these can ;e effected inthe na e of B.O. No. '. 3hese acts go far ;e+ond the calling-out po er of the 5resident. Certainl+,the+ violate the due process clause of the Constitution. 3hus, this Court declares that the <acts ofterroris < portion of B.O. No. ' is unconstitutional.

Significantl+, there is nothing in B.O. No. ' authori!ing the ilitar+ or police to co it acts ;e+ond hatare +%-%ss (2 +$ (o (* t% to su (%ss +$ (%<%+t = @=%ss <*o=%+-%, the li itation of theirauthorit+ in pursuing the Order. Other ise, such acts are considered illegal.

Ae first e6a ine G.R. No. 17139 #3avid et al. %

3he Constitution provides that <the right of the people to ;e secured in their persons, houses, papersand effects against unreasona;le search and sei!ure of hatever nature and for an+ purpose shall

;e in!iolable1 and no search arrant or @ (( +t o& ((%st shall issue e6cept upon pro;a;le cause to;e deter ined personall+ ;+ the judge after e6a ination under oath or affir ation of the co plainantand the itnesses he a+ produce, and particularl+ descri;ing the place to ;e searched and thepersons or things to ;e sei!ed.< $20 3he plain i port of the language of the Constitution is that searches,sei!ures and arrests are +o( ==2 unreasona;le unless authori!ed ;+ a validl+ issued search arrantor arrant of arrest. 3hus, the funda ental protection given ;+ this provision is that ;et een personand police ust stand the protective authorit+ of a agistrate clothed ith po er to issue or refuse toissue search arrants or arrants of arrest. $21

In the 8rief &ccount $22 su; itted ;+ petitioner David, certain facts are esta;lished" first, he as arrestedithout arrant/ second, the 5N5 operatives arrested hi on the ;asis of 55 $=$*/ third, he as

;rought at Ca p aringal, ue!on Cit+ here he as fingerprinted, photographed and ;ooked like a

Page | 40











cri inal suspect/ fourth, he as treated ;rus7uel+ ;+ police en ho <held his head and tried to pushhi < inside an un arked car/ fifth, he as charged ith Violation of B t s > +s B*= +g No.880$2' and I+-*t*+g to S%$*t*o+/ siAth, he as detained for seven #*% hours/ and seventh, he aseventuall+ released for insufficienc+ of evidence.

Section ', Rule $$1 of the Revised Rules on Cri inal 5rocedure provides"

Sec. '. Arrest wit%out warrant w%en law"ul . - & peace officer or a private person a+, ithout aarrant, arrest a person"

/ Ahen, in his presence, the person to ;e arrested has co itted, is actuall+ co itting, or isatte pting to co it an offense.

>/ Ahen an offense has just ;een co itted and he has pro;a;le cause to ;elieve ;ased onpersonal kno ledge of facts or circu stances that the person to ;e arrested has co itted it/and

6 6 6.

Neither of the t o #0% e6ceptions entioned a;ove justifies petitioner DavidKs arrantless arrest. Duringthe in7uest for the charges of i +-*t*+g to s%$*t*o+ and <*o= t*o+ o& B 880, all that the arrestingofficers could invoke as their o;servation that so e rall+ists ere earing t-shirts ith theinvective 9+ust Gloria >o%9 and their erroneous assu ption that petitioner David as the leader of therall+.$2 Conse7uentl+, the In7uest 5rosecutor ordered his i ediate release on the ground ofinsufficienc+ of evidence. ?e noted that petitioner David as not earing the su;ject t-shirt and even ifhe as earing it, such fact is insufficient to charge hi ith i +-*t*+g to s%$*t*o+. urther, he alsostated that there is insufficient evidence for the charge of <*o= t*o+ o& B 880as it as not even kno n

hether petitioner David as the leader of the rall+ .$2*

8ut hat ade it dou;l+ orse for petitioners David et al. is that not onl+ as their right againstarrantless arrest violated, ;ut also their right to peacea;l+ asse ;le.

Section 2 of &rticle III guarantees"

No la shall ;e passed a;ridging the freedo of speech, of e6pression, or of the press, or the right ofthe people peacea;l+ to asse ;le and petition the govern ent for redress of grievances.

<&sse ;l+< eans a right on the part of the citi!ens to eet peacea;l+ for consultation in respect to

pu;lic affairs. It is a necessar+ conse7uence of our repu;lican institution and co ple ents the right ofspeech. &s in the case of freedo of e6pression, this right is not to ;e li ited, uch less denied, e6cepton a sho ing of a -=% ( +$ (%s%+t $ +g%( of a su;stantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.In other ords, like other rights e ;raced in the freedo of e6pression, the right to asse ;le is notsu;ject to previous restraint or censorship. It a+ not ;e conditioned upon the prior issuance of aper it or authori!ation fro the govern ent authorities e6cept, of course, if the asse ;l+ is intended to;e held in a pu;lic place, a per it for the use of such place, and not for the asse ;l+ itself, a+ ;evalidl+ re7uired.

3he ringing truth here is that petitioner David, et al . ere arrested hile the+ ere e6ercising their rightto peaceful asse ;l+. 3he+ ere not co itting an+ cri e, neither as there a sho ing of a clear andpresent danger that arranted the li itation of that right. &s can ;e gleaned fro circu stances, thecharges of *+-*t*+g to s%$*t*o+ and <*o= t*o+ o& B 880 ere ere afterthought. Even the SolicitorBeneral, during the oral argu ent, failed to justif+ the arresting officersK conduct. In 3e Jon(e v.+re(on ,$2) it as held that peacea;le asse ;l+ cannot ;e ade a cri e, thus"

5eacea;le asse ;l+ for la ful discussion cannot ;e ade a cri e. 3he holding of eetings forpeacea;le political action cannot ;e proscri;ed. 3hose ho assist in the conduct of such eetingscannot ;e ;randed as cri inals on that score. 3he 7uestion, if the rights of free speech and peacefulasse ;l+ are not to ;e preserved, is not as to the auspices under hich the eeting as held ;ut as toits purpose/ not as to the relations of the speakers, ;ut hether their utterances transcend the ;oundsof the freedo of speech hich the Constitution protects. If the persons asse ;ling have co ittedcri es else here, if the+ have for ed or are engaged in a conspirac+ against the pu;lic peace andorder, the+ a+ ;e prosecuted for their conspirac+ or other violations of valid la s. But *t *s $*&&%

tt%( @'%+ t'% St t%, *+st% $ o& (os%-ut*+g t'% &o( su-' o&&%+s%s, s%* %s u o+ %(%

Page | 41













(t*-* t*o+ *+ % -% >=% ss% >=2 +$ = @&u= u>=*- $*s-uss*o+ s t'% > s*s &o( -' (g%.On the ;asis of the a;ove principles, the Court like ise considers the dispersal and arrest of the

e ;ers of 4> et al. #B.R. No. $*$2)1% un arranted. &pparentl+, their dispersal as done erel+ onthe ;asis of 4alacaPangKs directive canceling all per its previousl+ issued ;+ local govern ent units.3his is ar;itrar+. 3he holesale cancellation of all per its to rall+ is a ;latant disregard of the principlethat <&(%%$o o& ss% >=2 *s +ot to >% =* *t%$, u-' =%ss $%+*%$, % -% t o+ s'o@*+g o&clearand present danger o& su>st +t*<% %<*= t' t t'% St t% ' s (*g't to (%<%+t.<$2( 3olerance is the

rule and li itation is the e6ception. Onl+ upon a sho ing that an asse ;l+ presents a clear and presentdanger that the State a+ den+ the citi!ensK right to e6ercise it. Indeed, respondents failed to sho orconvince the Court that the rall+ists co itted acts a ounting to la less violence, invasion orre;ellion. Aith the ;lanket revocation of per its, the distinction ;et een protected and unprotectedasse ;lies as eli inated.

4oreover, under 85 ))=, the authorit+ to regulate asse ;lies and rallies is lodged ith the localgovern ent units. 3he+ have the po er to issue per its and to revoke such per its &t%( $u% +ot*-%

+$ '% (*+g on the deter ination of the presence of clear and present danger. ?ere, petitioners erenot even notified and heard on the revocation of their per its. $'= 3he first ti e the+ learned of it as atthe ti e of the dispersal. Such a;sence of notice is a fatal defect. Ahen a personKs right is restricted ;+govern ent action, it ;ehooves a de ocratic govern ent to see to it that the restriction is fair,reasona;le, and according to procedure.

G.R. No. 171 09, #Cacho-Olivares, et al. % presents another facet of freedo of speech i.e., the freedoof the press. 5etitionersK narration of facts, hich the Solicitor Beneral failed to refute, esta;lished thefollo ing" first, the 3aily -ribune2s offices ere searched ithout arrant/ second, the police operativessei!ed several aterials for pu;lication/ third , the search as conducted at a;out $"== oK clock in the

orning of e;ruar+ 0', 0== / fourth, the search as conducted in the a;sence of an+ official ofthe 3aily -ribune e6cept the securit+ guard of the ;uilding/ and fifth, police en stationed the selves atthe vicinit+ of the 3aily -ribune offices.

3hereafter, a ave of arning ca e fro govern ent officials. 5residential Chief of Staff 4ichaelDefensor as 7uoted as sa+ing that such raid as K % +t to s'o@ Mst(o+g (%s%+-%,H to t%==

%$* out=%ts +ot to -o++*<% o( $o +2t'*+g t' t @ou=$ '%= t'% (%>%=s *+ >(*+g*+g $o@+ t'*sgo<%(+ %+t.KDirector Beneral @o i;ao further stated that K*& t'%2 $o +ot &o==o@ t'% st +$ ($s F

+$ t'% st +$ ($s (% *& t'%2 @ou=$ -o+t(*>ut% to *+st >*=*t2 *+ t'% go<%(+ %+t, o( *& t'%2 $su>s-(*>% to @' t *s *+ G%+%( = O($%( No. 6 +$ (o-. No. 1017 F @% @*== (%-o %+$Qt %o<%( .K< National 3eleco unications Co issioner Ronald Solis urged television and radio

net orks to 9 cooperate 9 ith the govern ent for the duration of the state of national e ergenc+. "%@ (+%$ t' t '*s g%+-2 @*== +ot '%s*t t% to (%-o %+$ t'% -=osu(% o& +2 >(o $- st out&*t t'<*o= t%s (u=%s s%t out &o( %$* -o<%( g% $u(*+g t* %s @'%+ t'% + t*o+ = s%-u(*t2 *st'(% t%+%$.$'$

3he search is illegal. Rule $0 of 3he Revised Rules on Cri inal 5rocedure la+s do n the steps in theconduct of search and sei!ure. S%-t*o+ re7uires that a s% (-' @ (( +t ;e issued upon pro;a;lecause in connection ith one specific offence to ;e deter ined personall+ ;+ the judge aftere6a ination under oath or affir ation of the co plainant and the itnesses he a+ produce. S%-t*o+8 andates that the search of a house, roo , or an+ other pre ise ;e ade *+ t'% (%s%+-% o&t'% = @&u= o--u +t thereof or an+ e ;er of his fa il+ or in the a;sence of the latter, in thepresence of t o #0% itnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the sa e localit+. &nd S%-t*o+9 states that the arrant ust direct that it ;e served in the $ 2t* %, unless the propert+ is on theperson or in the place ordered to ;e searched, in hich case a direction a+ ;e inserted that it ;eserved at an+ ti e of the da+ or night. &ll these rules ere violated ;+ the CIDB operatives.

Not onl+ that, the search violated petitionersK freedo of the press. 3he ;est gauge of a free andde ocratic societ+ rests in the degree of freedo enjo+ed ;+ its edia. In the *ur(os v. Chief of$taff $'0 this Court held that --

&s heretofore stated, the pre ises searched ere the ;usiness and printing offices of the < MetropolitanMail < and the <Fe 5orum < ne spapers. &s a conse7uence of the search and sei!ure, t'%s% (% *s%s

Page | 42













@%(% $=o- %$ +$ s% =%$, @*t' t'% &u(t'%( (%su=t t' t t'% (*+t*+g +$ u>=*- t*o+ o& s+%@s %(s @%(% $*s-o+t*+u%$.

Su-' -=osu(% *s *+ t'% + tu(% o& (%<*ous (%st( *+t o( -%+so(s'* >'o((%+t to t'% &(%%$o o&(%ss gu ( +t%%$ u+$%( t'% &u+$ %+t = = @, +$ -o+st*tut%s <*(tu = $%+* = o& %t*t*

&(%%$o to % (%ss t'% s%=<%s *+ (*+t. T'*s st t% o& >%*+g *s t%+t=2 + t'% t*- to $% o-( t*- &( %@o( @'%(% &(%%, =%(t +$ %<%+ *=*t +t (%ss *s %ss%+t* = &o( t'%%+=*g't%+ %+t +$ g(o@t' o& t'% -*t* %+(2.

Ahile ad ittedl+, the 3aily -ribune as not padlocked and sealed like the < Metropolitan Mail < and <Fe5orum < ne spapers in the a;ove case, +et it cannot ;e denied that the CIDB operatives e6ceeded their enforce ent duties. 3he search and sei!ure of aterials for pu;lication, the stationing of police en inthe vicinit+ of the -he 3aily -ribune offices, and the arrogant arning of govern ent officials to edia,are plain censorship. It is that officious functionar+ of the repressive govern ent ho tells the citi!enthat he a+ speak onl+ if allo ed to do so, and no ore and no less than hat he is per itted to sa+on pain of punish ent should he ;e so rash as to diso;e+ .$'1 >ndou;tedl+, the -he 3aily -ribune assu;jected to these ar;itrar+ intrusions ;ecause of its anti-govern ent senti ents. 3his Court cannottolerate the ;latant disregard of a constitutional right even if it involves the ost defiant of our citi!ens.

reedo to co ent on pu;lic affairs is essential to the vitalit+ of a representative de ocrac+. It is thedut+ of the courts to ;e atchful for the constitutional rights of the citi!en, and against an+ stealth+encroach ents thereon. 3he otto should al a+s ;e obsta principiis .$'2

Incidentall+, during the oral argu ents, the Solicitor Beneral ad itted that the search ofthe -ribune2s offices and the sei!ure of its aterials for pu;lication and other papers are illegal/ and thatthe sa e are inad issi;le <for an+ purpose,< thus"

:>S3ICE C&@@E:O"

ou ade 7uite a outhful of ad ission hen +ou said that the police en, hen inspected the 3ri;unefor the purpose of gathering evidence and +ou ad itted that the police en ere a;le to get theclippings. Is that not in ad ission of the ad issi;ilit+ of these clippings that ere taken fro the3ri;uneL

SO@ICI3OR BENER&@ 8ENI5& O"

>nder the la the+ ould see to ;e, if the+ ere illegall+ sei!ed, I think and I kno , our ?onor, andthese are inad issi;le for an+ purpose. $''

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

SR. &SSO. :>S3ICE 5>NO"

3hese have ;een pu;lished in the past issues of the Dail+ 3ri;une/ all +ou have to do is to get thosepast issues. So h+ do +ou have to go there at $ oKclock in the orning and ithout an+ search

arrantL Did the+ ;eco e suddenl+ part of the evidence of re;ellion or inciting to sedition or hatL

SO@BEN 8ENI5& O"

Aell, it as the police that did that, our ?onor. Not upon + instructions.


&re +ou sa+ing that the act of the police an is illegal, it is not ;ased on an+ la , and it is not ;ased on5rocla ation $=$*.

SO@BEN 8ENI5& O"

It is not ;ased on 5rocla ation $=$*, our ?onor, ;ecause there is nothing in $=$* hich sa+s that thepolice could go and inspect and gather clippings fro Dail+ 3ri;une or an+ other ne spaper.


Is it ;ased on an+ la L

SO@BEN 8ENI5& O"

&s far as I kno , +o, our ?onor, fro the facts, +o.

Page | 43












So, it has no ;asis, no legal ;asis hatsoeverL

SO@BEN 8ENI5& O"

4a+;e so, our ?onor. 4a+;e so, that is h+ I said, I donKt kno if it is pre ature to sa+ this, @% $o+ot -o+$o+% t'*s . I& t'% %o =% @'o ' <% >%%+ *+?u(%$ >2 t'*s @ou=$ @ +t to su% t'% , t'%2su% +$ t'%(% (% (% %$*%s &o( t'*s.$'

@ike ise, the arrantless arrests and sei!ures e6ecuted ;+ the police ere, according to the SolicitorBeneral, illegal and cannot ;e condoned, thus"C?IE :>S3ICE 5&NB&NI8&N"

3here see s to ;e so e confusions if not contradiction in +our theor+.

SO@ICI3OR BENER&@ 8ENI5& O"

I donKt kno hether this ill clarif+. 3he acts, the supposed illegal or unla ful acts co itted on theoccasion of $=$*, as I said, *t - ++ot >% -o+$o+%$. ou cannot ;la e the 5resident for, as +ou said,a isapplication of the la . 3hese are acts of the police officers, that is their responsi;ilit+ .$'*

3he Dissenting Opinion states that 55 $=$* and B.O. No. ' are constitutional in ever+ aspect and<should result in no constitutional or statutor+ ;reaches if applied according to their letter.<

3he Court has passed upon the constitutionalit+ of these issuances. Its ratiocination has ;eene6haustivel+ presented. &t this point, suffice it to reiterate that 55 $=$* is li ited to the calling out ;+the 5resident of the ilitar+ to prevent or suppress la less violence, invasion or re;ellion. Ahen ini ple enting its provisions, pursuant to B.O. No. ', the ilitar+ and the police co itted acts hichviolate the citi!ensK rights under the Constitution, this Court has to declare such acts unconstitutionaland illegal.

In this connection, Chief :ustice &rte io V. 5angani;anKs concurring opinion, attached hereto, isconsidered an integral part of this ponencia .

S U ! ! A T I O NIn su , the lifting of 55 $=$* through the issuance of 55 $=0$ J a supervening event J ould havenor all+ rendered this case oot and acade ic. ?o ever, hile 55 $=$* as still operative, illegalacts ere co itted allegedl+ in pursuance thereof. 8esides, there is no guarantee that 55 $=$*, orone si ilar to it, a+ not again ;e issued. &lread+, there have ;een edia reports on &pril 1=, 0==that allegedl+ 55 $=$* ould ;e rei posed <if the 4a+ $ rallies< ;eco e <unrul+ and violent.<Conse7uentl+, the transcendental issues raised ;+ the parties should not ;e <evaded/< the+ ust no;e resolved to prevent future constitutional a;erration.

3he Court finds and so holds that 55 $=$* is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call ;+ the5resident for the & 5 to prevent or suppress = @=%ss <*o=%+-%. 3he procla ation is sustained ;+Section $), &rticle VII of the Constitution and the relevant jurisprudence discussed earlier. ?o ever, 55$=$*Ks e6traneous provisions giving the 5resident e6press or i plied po er #$% to issue decrees/ #0% todirect the & 5 to enforce o;edience to == = @s even those not related to la less violence as ell asdecrees pro ulgated ;+ the 5resident/ and #1% to i pose standards on edia or an+ for of prior

restraint on the press, are ultra vires and u+-o+st*tut*o+ =. 3he Court also rules that under Section $*, &rticle II of the Constitution, the 5resident, in the a;sence of a legislation, cannot take over privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ and private ;usiness affected ith pu;lic interest.

In the sa e vein, the Court finds B.O. No. ' valid. It is an Order issued ;+ the 5resident J acting asCo ander-in-Chief J addressed to su;alterns in the & 5 to carr+ out the provisions of 55 $=$*.Significantl+, it also provides a valid standard J that the ilitar+ and the police should take onl+ the<+%-%ss (2 +$ (o (* t% -t*o+s +$ % su(%s to su (%ss +$ (%<%+t -ts o& = @=%s<*o=%+-%.<8ut the ords < -ts o& t%((o(*s < found in B.O. No. ' have not ;een legall+ defined and

ade punisha;le ;+ Congress and should thus ;e dee ed deleted fro the said B.O. Ahile<terroris < has ;een denounced generall+ in edia, no la has ;een enacted to guide the ilitar+, and

Page | 44








eventuall+ the courts, to deter ine the li its of the & 5Ks authorit+ in carr+ing out this portion of B.O.No. '.

On the ;asis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier, it is also pristine clear that #$% thearrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. David and Ronald @la as/ #0% the dispersal of the rallies

and arrantless arrest of the 4> and N& @>- 4> e ;ers/ #1% the i position of standards onedia or an+ prior restraint on the press/ and #2% the arrantless search of the -ribune offices and thehi sical sei!ures of so e articles for pu;lication and other aterials, are not authori!ed ;+ the

Constitution, the la and jurisprudence. Not even ;+ the valid provisions of 55 $=$* and B.O. No. '.

Other than this declaration of invalidit+, this Court cannot i pose an+ civil, cri inal or ad inistrativesanctions on the individual police officers concerned. 3he+ have not ;een individuall+ identified andgiven their da+ in court. 3he civil co plaints or causes of action and or relevant cri inal Infor ationshave not ;een presented ;efore this Court. Ele entar+ due process ;ars this Court fro aking an+specific pronounce ent of civil, cri inal or ad inistrative lia;ilities.

It is @%== to (% % >%( t' t *=*t (2 o@%( *s % +s to + %+$ +$ su>st +t*<% -*<*= (*g't%+$s *+ t'% s%=<%s. "o@ to g*<% t'% *=*t (2 t'% o@%( *t +%%$s to (ot%-t t'% R% u>=*- @u++%-%ss (*=2 t( =*+g *+$*<*$u = (*g'ts *s o+% o& t'% %t%(+ = > = +-*+g t s s o& $%st t%.During e ergenc+, govern ental action a+ var+ in ;readth and intensit+ fro nor al ti es, +etthe+ should not ;e ar;itrar+ as to undul+ restrain our peopleKs li;ert+.

5erhaps, the vital lesson that e ust learn fro the theorists ho studied the various co petingpolitical philosophies is that, it is possi;le to grant govern ent the authorit+ to cope ith crises ithoutsurrendering the t o vital principles of constitutionalis " t'% *+t%+ +-% o& =%g = =* *ts to (>*

o@%( , and o=*t*- = (%s o+s*>*=*t2 o& t'% go<%(+ %+t to t'% go<%(+%$.$')

"ERE)ORE , the 5etitions are partl+ granted. 3he Court rules that 55 $=$*is CONSTITUTIONALinsofar as it constitutes a call ;+ 5resident Bloria 4acapagal-&rro+o on the

& 5 to (%<%+t o( su (%ss = @=%ss <*o=%+-%. ?o ever, the provisions of 55 $=$* co anding the & 5 to enforce la s not related to la less violence, as ell as decrees pro ulgated ;+ the 5resident,are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in 55 $=$* declaring nationale ergenc+ under Section $*, &rticle VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, ;ut such declarationdoes not authori!e the 5resident to take over privatel+-o ned pu;lic utilit+ or ;usiness affected ithpu;lic interest ithout prior legislation.

B.O. No. ' is CONSTITUTIONALsince it provides a standard ;+ hich the & 5 and the 5N5 shouldi ple ent 55 $=$*, i.e. hatever is < +%-%ss (2 +$ (o (* t% -t*o+s +$ % su(%s tosu (%ss +$ (%<%+t -ts o& = @=%ss <*o=%+-%.< Considering that <acts of terroris < have not +et;een defined and ade punisha;le ;+ the @egislature, such portion of B.O. No. ' isdeclared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.3he arrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald @la as/ the dispersal and arrantless arrest ofthe 4> and N& @>- 4> e ;ers during their rallies, in the a;sence of proof that these petitioners

ere co itting acts constituting la less violence, invasion or re;ellion and violating 85 ))=/ thei position of standards on edia or an+ for of prior restraint on the press, as ell as the arrantlesssearch of the -ribune offices and hi sical sei!ure of its articles for pu;lication and other aterials, aredeclared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

No costs.SO ORDERED.

Page | 45





# 13 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. 191988 August 31, 5010

ATTY. EVILLO C. OR!ENTO, 5etitioner,vs.

OSE " KERA K E ERCITO ESTRADA +$ CO!!ISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

R E S O @ > 3 I O N

CORONA,&.J.:

Ahat is the proper interpretation of the follo ing provision of Section 2, &rticle VII of the Constitution" <GtHhe5resident shall not ;e eligi;le for an+ reelectionL<

3he novelt+ and co ple6it+ of the constitutional issue involved in this case present a te ptation thatagistrates, la +ers, legal scholars and la students alike ould find hard to resist. ?o ever, prudence

dictates that this Court e6ercise judicial restraint here the issue ;efore it has alread+ ;een ooted ;+su;se7uent events. 4ore i portantl+, the constitutional re7uire ent of the e6istence of a <case< or an<actual controvers+< for the proper e6ercise of the po er of judicial revie constrains us to refuse the allureof aking a grand pronounce ent that, in the end, ill a ount to nothing ;ut a non-;inding opinion.

3he petition asks hether private respondent :oseph Ejercito Estrada is covered ;+ the ;an on the5resident fro <an+ reelection.< 5rivate respondent as elected 5resident of the Repu;lic of the 5hilippinesin the general elections held on 4a+ $$, $((). ?e sought the presidenc+ again in the general elections heldon 4a+ $=, 0=$=. 5etitioner &tt+. Evillo C. 5or ento opposed private respondentKs candidac+ and filed apetition for dis7ualification. ?o ever, his petition as denied ;+ the Second Division of pu;lic respondentCo ission on Elections #CO4E@EC%. $ ?is otion for reconsideration as su;se7uentl+ denied ;+ theCO4E@EC en ;anc. 0

5etitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari1

on 4a+ *, 0=$=. ?o ever, under the Rules of Court, the filingof such petition ould not sta+ the e6ecution of the judg ent, final order or resolution of the CO4E@EC thatis sought to ;e revie ed. 2 8esides, petitioner did not even pra+ for the issuance of a te porar+ restrainingorder or rit of preli inar+ injunction. ?ence, private respondent as a;le to participate as a candidate forthe position of 5resident in the 4a+ $=, 0=$= elections here he garnered the second highest nu ;er ofvotes. '

?avvphi?

5rivate respondent as not elected 5resident the second ti e he ran. Since the issue on the properinterpretation of the phrase <an+ reelection< ill ;e pre ised on a personKs second # hether i ediate ornot% election as 5resident, there is no case or controvers+ to ;e resolved in this case. No live conflict of legalrights e6ists. 3here is in this case no definite, concrete, real or su;stantial controvers+ that touches on thelegal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. * No specific relief a+ conclusivel+ ;e decreed upon;+ this Court in this case that ill ;enefit an+ of the parties herein. ) &s such, one of the essential re7uisitesfor the e6ercise of the po er of judicial revie , the e6istence of an actual case or controvers+, is sorel+lacking in this case.

&s a rule, this Court a+ onl+ adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. ( 3he Court is not e po ered todecide oot 7uestions or a;stract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of la hich cannot affectthe result as to the thing in issue in the case ;efore it. $= In other ords, hen a case is oot, it ;eco esnon-justicia;le. $$

&n action is considered < oot< hen it no longer presents a justicia;le controvers+ ;ecause the issuesinvolved have ;eco e acade ic or dead or hen the atter in dispute has alread+ ;een resolved and

Page | 46

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_191988_2010.html#fnt1




























hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likel+ to ;e raised again ;et een theparties. 3here is nothing for the court to resolve as the deter ination thereof has ;een overtaken ;+su;se7uent events. $0

&ssu ing an actual case or controvers+ e6isted prior to the procla ation of a 5resident ho has ;een dul+elected in the 4a+ $=, 0=$= elections, the sa e is no longer true toda+. ollo ing the results of thatelections, private respondent as not elected 5resident for the second ti e. 3hus, an+ discussion of his<reelection< ill si pl+ ;e h+pothetical and speculative. It ill serve no useful or practical purpose.

&ccordingl+, the petition is denied due course and is here;+ DIS4ISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 47





# 1 EN 8&NC

G.R. Nos. 178831 35 u=2 30, 5009

OCELYN SY LI!QAIC"ONG, 5etitioner,vs.CO!!ISSION ON ELECTIONS, NA OLEON N. CA!ERO +$ RENALD ). VILLANDO, Respondents.

6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -6

R E S O @ > 3 I O N

ERALTA, J. ;

3he instant otion ith pra+er for oral argu ent filed ;+ @ouis C. 8iraogo, petitioner in B.R. No. $*($0=,seeks a reconsideration of the CourtKs &pril $, 0==( Decision, hich granted :ocel+n D. S+ @i kaichongKspetition for certiorari in B.R. Nos. $*))1$-10. 3he Court dis issed all the other petitions, including 8iraogoKspetition, and reversed the :oint Resolution of the Co ission on ElectionKs #CO4E@EC% Second Divisiondated 4a+ $*, 0==* in S5& Nos. =*-02* and =*-02) dis7ualif+ing @i kaichong fro running as acongressional candidate in the irst District of Negros Oriental due to lack of citi!enship re7uire ent.

8iraogo prefaced his otion ;+ stating that justice and constitutionalis ust re ain entrenched in5hilippine case la . 3o achieve this end, he aintained that the Court should reconsider its &pril $, 0==(Decision. ?e also pra+ed for an oral argu ent, hich he posited, ould help the Court in the just and proper disposition of the pending incident.

&fter an assiduous revie of the otion for reconsideration, e resolve that the sa e should ;e denied forlack of erit.

4ost of the argu ents advanced ;+ 8iraogo are a ere rehash of his previous argu ents, hich e have

all considered and found ithout erit in the Decision dated &pril $, 0==(. Nonetheless, in order to la+ torest once and for all 8iraogo9s isgivings, e shall discuss onl+ the relevant issues and revalidate ourDecision ;+ ruling on his otion as follo s"

3he core issue in the consolidated petitions is the 7ualification of @i kaichong to run for, ;e elected to, andassu e and discharge, the position of Representative for the irst District of Negros Oriental. 3hecontention of the parties ho sought her dis7ualification is that she is not a natural-;orn citi!en, hence, shelacks the citi!enship re7uire ent in Section , $ &rticle VI of the $()* Constitution. In the election thatensued, she as voted for ;+ the constituents of Negros Oriental and garnered the highest votes. She aseventuall+ proclai ed as the inner and has since perfor ed her duties and responsi;ilities as 4e ;er ofthe ?ouse of Representatives.

Indeed, the citi!enship re7uire ent as enshrined in our Constitution in order to ensure that our people andcountr+ do not end up ;eing governed ;+ aliens. 0 Aith this principle in ind, e have said in !quino v.C+M L C 1 that if one of the essential 7ualifications for running for e ;ership in the ?ouse ofRepresentatives is lacking, then not even the ill of a ajorit+ or pluralit+ of the voters ould su;stitute for are7uire ent andated ;+ the funda ental la itself. ?ence assu ing, ti e constraints not ithstanding, andafter proper proceedings ;efore the proper tri;unal ;e had, that @i kaichong ould prove to ;e an alien, thecourt of justice ould tilt against her favor and ould not sanction such an i perfection in her 7ualification tohold office. 8ut, first things first.

Page | 48

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_178831_2009.html#fnt1









3he proponents against @i kaichong9s 7ualification stated that she is not a natural-;orn citi!en ;ecause herparents ere Chinese citi!ens at the ti e of her ;irth. 3he+ ent on to clai that the proceedings for thenaturali!ation of :ulio Ong S+, her father, never attained finalit+ due to procedural and su;stantial defects.

In our Decision, Ae held that"

?o ever, in assailing the citi!enship of the father, the proper proceeding should ;e in accordance ithSection $) of Co on ealth &ct No. 2*1 hich provides that"

Sec. $). Cancellation of >aturalization Certificate ssued . - U o+ ot*o+ $% *+ t'% (o %( (o-%%$*+>2 t'% So=*-*to( G%+%( = o( '*s (% (%s%+t t*<%, o( >2 t'% (o %( (o<*+-* = &*s- =, t'% -o %t%

2 - +-%= t'% + tu( =* t*o+ -%(t*&*- t% *ssu%$ +$ *ts (%g*st( t*o+ *+ t'% C*<*= R%g*st%( "

$. If it is sho n that said naturali!ation certificate as o;tained fraudulentl+ or illegall+/

0. If the person naturali!ed shall, ithin five +ears ne6t follo ing the issuance of said naturali!ationcertificate, return to his native countr+ or to so e foreign countr+ and esta;lish his per anentresidence there" rovided , 3hat the fact of the person naturali!ed re aining ore than one +ear inhis native countr+ or the countr+ of his for er nationalit+, or t o +ears in an+ other foreign countr+,shall ;e considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up his per anent residence inthe sa e"

1. If the petition as ade on an invalid declaration of intention/

2. If it is sho n that the inor children of the person naturali!ed failed to graduate fro a pu;lic orprivate high school recogni!ed ;+ the Office of 5rivate Education Gno 8ureau of 5rivate SchoolsH ofthe 5hilippines, here 5hilippine histor+, govern ent or civics are taught as part of the schoolcurriculu , through the fault of their parents either ;+ neglecting to support the or ;+ transferringthe to another school or schools. & certified cop+ of the decree canceling the naturali!ationcertificate shall ;e for arded ;+ the Clerk of Court of the Depart ent of Interior Gno Office of the5residentH and the 8ureau of :ustice Gno Office of the Solicitor BeneralH/

'. If it is sho n that the naturali!ed citi!en has allo ed hi self to ;e used as a du + in violation of the constitutional or legal provisions re7uiring 5hilippine citi!enship as a re7uisite for the e6ercise,use or enjo+ ent of a right, franchise or privilege. #E phasis supplied%

&s earl+ as the case of ueto v. Catolico , here the Court of irst Instance judge motu propio and not in theproper denaturali!ation proceedings called to court various grantees of certificates of naturali!ation # hohad alread+ taken their oaths of allegiance% and cancelled their certificates of naturali!ation due toprocedural infir ities, the Court held that"

6 6 6 It 2 >% t(u% t' t, as alleged ;+ said respondents, that t'% (o-%%$*+gs &o( + tu( =* t*o+ @%t *+t%$ @*t' -%(t *+ *+&*( *t*%s, & t = o( ot'%(@*s%,;ut that is ;eside the point in this case. 3he jurisdictionof the court to in7uire into and rule upon such infir ities ust ;e properl+ invoked in accordance ith theprocedure laid do n ;+ la . Such procedure is the cancellation of the naturali!ation certificate. GSection $#'%,Co on ealth &ct No. 1H, in the anner fi6ed in Section $) of Co on ealth &ct No. 2*1, herein;efore7uoted, na el+, <upon otion ade in the proper proceedings ;+ the Solicitor Beneral or hisrepresentatives, or ;+ the proper provincial fiscal.< I+ ot'%( @o($s, t'% *+*t* t*<% ust -o % &(o t'%s%o&&*-%(s, (%su >=2 &t%( (%<*ous *+<%st*g t*o+ *+ % -' (t*-u= ( - s%.#E phasis supplied%

Clearl+, under la and jurisprudence, it is the State, through its representatives designated ;+ statute, thata+ 7uestion the illegall+ or invalidl+ procured certificate of naturali!ation in the appropriate denaturali!ation

proceedings. It is plainl+ not a atter that a+ ;e raised ;+ private persons in an election case involving thenaturali!ed citi!enKs descendant.

Page | 49



&ccordingl+, it is not enough that one9s 7ualification, or lack of it, to hold an office re7uiring one to ;e anatural-;orn citi!en, ;e attacked and 7uestioned ;efore an+ tri;unal or govern ent institution. 5roperproceedings ust ;e strictl+ follo ed ;+ the proper officers under the la . ?ence, in seeking @i kaichong9sdis7ualification on account of her citi!enship, the rudi ents of fair pla+ and due process ust ;e o;served,for in doing so, she is not onl+ deprived of the right to hold office as a 4e ;er of the ?ouse ofRepresentative ;ut her constituents ould also ;e deprived of a leader in ho the+ have put their trust onthrough their votes. 3he o;vious rationale ;ehind the foregoing ruling is that in voting for a candidate hohas not ;een dis7ualified ;+ final judg ent during the election da+, the people voted for her ;ona fide,

ithout an+ intention to isappl+ their franchise, and in the honest ;elief that the candidate as then7ualified to ;e the person to ho the+ ould entrust the e6ercise of the po ers of govern ent. 2

lavvphil

3hese precepts, not ithstanding, 8iraogo re ained fir in his ;elief that this Court erred in its Decision andthat the CO4E@EC :oint Resolution dated 4a+ $*, 0==* dis7ualif+ing @i kaichong should have ;eenaffir ed. ?e even ent to a great e6tent of giving a dichoto + of the said :oint Resolution ;+ stating that it

as co posed of t o parts, the first part of hich is the su;stantive part, and the second, pertains to theinjunctive part. or this purpose, the dispositive portion of the said CO4E@EC :oint Resolution isreproduced ;elo "

A?ERE ORE, the 5etitions are BR&N3ED and :ocel+n D. S+-@i kaichong is declared as DIS >&@I IEDfro her candidac+ for Representative of the irst District of Negros Oriental.

3he 5rovincial Supervisor of the Co ission on Elections of Negros Oriental is here;+ directed to strike outthe na e :OCE@ N S -@I4 &IC?ONB fro the list of eligi;le candidates for the said position, and theconcerned 8oard of Canvassers is here;+ directed to hold and or suspend the procla ation of :OCE@ NS -@I4 &IC?ONB as inning candidate, if an+, until this decision has ;eco e final.

SO ORDERED .'

8iraogo aintained that the 4otion for Reconsideration filed ;+ @i kaichong suspended onl+ the e6ecutionof the su;stantive relief or the first part of the a;ove-7uoted CO4E@EC :oint Resolution. ?o ever, it did notsuspend the e6ecution of the injunctive part and, accordingl+, the 5rovincial Supervisor of the CO4E@ECshould not have proceeded ith @i kaichong9s procla ation as the inning candidate in the elections.

?is argu ent has no leg to stand on. Ae cannot take a decision or resolution on a piece- eal ;asis andappl+ onl+ that part hich is see ingl+ ;eneficial to one9s cause and discard the prejudicial part hich,o;viousl+, ould just ;e a hindrance in advancing one9s stance or interests. 8esides, the CO4E@EC :ointResolution hich 8iraogo dichoto i!ed as effectivel+ suspended hen @i kaichong ti el+ filed her 4otionfor Reconsideration pursuant to Section $1#c%, Rule $) and Section 0, * Rule $( of the CO4E@EC Rules of5rocedure. ?ence, it cannot as +et ;e i ple ented for not having attained its finalit+.

Nevertheless, events have alread+ transpired after the CO4E@EC has rendered its :oint Resolution.@i kaichong as proclai ed ;+ the 5rovincial 8oard of Canvassers, she had taken her oath of office, andshe as allo ed to officiall+ assu e the office on :ul+ 01, 0==*. &ccordingl+, e ruled in our &pril $, 0==(

Decision that the ?ouse of Representatives Electoral 3ri;unal #?RE3%, and no longer the CO4E@EC, shouldno assu e jurisdiction over the dis7ualification cases. 5ertinentl+, e held"

6 6 6 3he Court has invaria;l+ held that once a inning candidate ' s >%%+ (o-= * %$, t %+ '*s o t' ,and ssu %$ o&&*-% as a 4e ;er of the ?ouse of Representatives, t'% CO!ELECPs ?u(*s$*-t*o+ o<%(%=%-t*o+ -o+t%sts (%= t*+g to '*s %=%-t*o+, (%tu(+s, +$ u =*&*- t*o+s %+$s, +$ t'% "RETPs o@

?u(*s$*-t*o+ >%g*+s.) It follo s then that the procla ation of a inning candidate divests the CO4E@EC ofits jurisdiction over atters pending ;efore it at the ti e of the procla ation. 3he part+ 7uestioning his7ualification should no present his case in a proper proceeding ;efore the ?RE3, the constitutionall+

andated tri;unal to hear and decide a case involving a 4e ;er of the ?ouse of Representatives ithrespect to the latter9s election, returns and 7ualifications. 3he use of the ord <sole< in Section $*, &rticle VI

Page | 50


















of the Constitution and in Section 0'= ( of the OEC underscores the e6clusivit+ of the Electoral 3ri;unals9 jurisdiction over election contests relating to its e ;ers. $=

S%-t*o+ 17, A(t*-=% VI of the 1987 Co+st*tut*o+ provides"

Sec. $*. 3he Senate and the "ous% o& R% (%s%+t t*<%s shall each have an Electoral 3ri;unal hich shall;e the so=% ?u$g% o& == -o+t%sts (%= t*+g to t'% %=%-t*o+, (%tu(+s, +$ u =*&*- t*o+s o& t'%*(!% >%(s . Each Electoral 3ri;unal shall ;e co posed of nine 4e ;ers, three of ho shall ;e :ustices of

the Supre e Court to ;e designated ;+ the Chief :ustice, and the re aining si6 shall ;e 4e ;ers of theSenate or the ?ouse of Representatives, as the case a+ ;e, ho shall ;e chosen on the ;asis ofproportional representation fro the political parties and the parties or organi!ations registered under thepart+-list s+ste represented therein. 3he senior :ustice in the Electoral 3ri;unal shall ;e its Chair an.

6 6 6 6

5etitioners #in B.R. Nos. $*($0=, $*($10-11, and $*(02=-2$% steadfastl+ aintained that @i kaichongKsprocla ation as tainted ith irregularit+, hich ill effectivel+ prevent the ?RE3 fro ac7uiring jurisdiction.

3he fact that the procla ation of the inning candidate, as in this case, as alleged to have ;een taintedith irregularit+ does not divest the ?RE3 of its jurisdiction. $$ 3he Court has shed light on this in the case

of 0inzons4Chato ,$0 to the effect that"

In the present case, it is not disputed that respondent >nico has alread+ ;een proclai ed and taken his oathof office as a 4e ;er of the ?ouse of Representatives #3hirteenth Congress%/ hence, the CO4E@ECcorrectl+ ruled that it had alread+ lost jurisdiction over petitioner Chato9s petition. 3he issues raised ;+petitioner Chato essentiall+ relate to the canvassing of returns and alleged invalidit+ of respondent >nico9sprocla ation. 3hese are atters that are ;est addressed to the sound judg ent and discretion of the ?RE3.Significantl+, the allegation that respondent >nico9s procla ation is null and void does not divest the ?RE3of its jurisdiction"

6 6 6 GIHn an electoral contest here the validit+ of the procla ation of a inning candidate ho has taken his

oath of office and assu ed his post as congress an is raised, that issue is ;est addressed to the ?RE3.3he reason for this ruling is self-evident, for it avoids duplicit+ of proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction;et een constitutional ;odies, ith due regard to the people9s andate.

urther, for the Court to take cogni!ance of petitioner Chato9s election protest against respondent >nicoould ;e to usurp the constitutionall+ andated functions of the ?RE3.

In fine, an+ allegations as to the invalidit+ of the procla ation ill not prevent the ?RE3 fro assu ing jurisdiction over all atters essential to a e ;erKs 7ualification to sit in the ?ouse of Representatives.

3he $(() ?RE3 Rules, as a ended, provide for the anner of filing either an election protest or a petitionfor quo %arranto against a 4e ;er of the ?ouse of Representatives. In our Decision, e ruled that the ten-da+ prescriptive period under the $(() ?RE3 Rules does not appl+ to dis7ualification ;ased on citi!enship,;ecause 7ualifications for pu;lic office are continuing re7uire ents and ust ;e possessed not onl+ at theti e of appoint ent or election or assu ption of office ;ut during the officer9s entire tenure. Once an+ of there7uired 7ualifications is lost, his title a+ ;e seasona;l+ challenged. $1 &ccordingl+, the $()* Constitutionre7uires that 4e ;ers of the ?ouse of Representatives ust ;e natural-;orn citi!ens not onl+ at the ti e oftheir election ;ut during their entire tenure. 8eing a continuing re7uire ent, one ho assails a e ;er9sciti!enship or lack of it a+ still 7uestion the sa e at an+ ti e, the ten-da+ prescriptive periodnot ithstanding. lavvphi?

In fine, e hold that 8iraogo had not successfull+ convinced us to reconsider our Decision and grant hisotion for reconsideration.

Page | 51














In a last-ditched atte pt to uddle the issues, 8iraogo o;served that the Decision dated &pril $, 0==( is aco plete turn-around fro the ruling e ;odied in the Decision ritten ;+ :ustice Ru;en 3. Re+es hich,although unpro ulgated, as nonetheless signed ;+ fourteen #$2% &ssociate :ustices and approved ;+ theCourt en ;anc on :ul+ $', 0==). ?e decried the a;sence of an e6planation in the Decision dated &pril $,0==( for the said departure or turn-around.

Such a position deserves scant consideration.

3he Court in *elac v. Commision on lections,$2

held that a decision ust not onl+ ;e s*g+%$ ;+ the:ustices ho took part in the deli;eration, ;ut ust also ;e (o u=g t%$ to ;e considered a D%-*s*o+, toit"

A3 true decision o" t%e &ourt is t%e decision signed by t%e Justices and duly promulgated. $e"oret%at decision is so signed and promulgated1 t%ere is no decision o" t%e &ourt to spea0 o" . 3he votecast ;+ a e ;er of the Court after the deli;eration is al a+s understood to ;e su;ject to confir ation atthe ti e he has to sign the decision that is to ;e pro ulgated. 3he vote is of no value if it is not thusconfir ed ;+ the :ustice casting it. 3he purpose of this practice is apparent. 4e ;ers of this Court, evenafter the+ have cast their votes, ish to preserve their freedo of action till the last o ent hen the+ haveto sign the decision, so that the+ a+ take full advantage of hat the+ a+ ;elieve to ;e the ;est fruit oftheir ost ature reflection and deli;eration. In consonance ith this practice, >%&o(% $%-*s*o+ *s s*g

+$ (o u=g t%$, == o *+*o+s +$ -o+-=us*o+s st t%$ $u(*+g +$ &t%( t'% $%=*>%( t*o+ o& t'%(% *+ *+ t'% >(% sts o& t'% ust*-%s, >*+$*+g u o+ +o o+%, +ot %<%+ u o+ t'% ust*-%s t'% s%=.Of course, the+ a+ serve for deter ining hat the opinion of the ajorit+ provisionall+ is and fordesignating a e ;er to prepare the decision of the Court, ;ut in +o @ 2 *s t' t $%-*s*o+ >*+$*+g u+=%

+$ u+t*= s*g+%$ +$ (o u=g t%$.

Ae add that at an+ ti e ;efore pro ulgation, the ponencia a+ ;e changed ;+ the ponente. Indeed, if an+e ;er of the court ho a+ have alread+ signed it so desires, he a+ still ithdra his concurrence and

register a 7ualification or dissent as long as the decision has not +et ;een pro ulgated. A (o u=g t*o+s*g+*&*%s t' t o+ t'% $ t% *t @ s $% t'% ?u$g% o( ?u$g%s @'o s*g+%$ t'% $%-*s*o+ -o+t*+u%$ tosu o(t *t.

3hus, an unpro ulgated decision is no decision at all. &t the ver+ least, the+ are part of the confidentialinternal deli;erations of the Court hich ust not ;e released to the pu;lic. & decision ;eco es ;inding onl+after it is validl+ pro ulgated. $' >ntil such operative act occurs, there is reall+ no decision to speak of, even if so e or all of the :ustices have alread+ affi6ed their signatures thereto. During the intervening period frothe ti e of signing until the pro ulgation of the decision, an+ one ho took part in the deli;eration and hadsigned the decision a+, for a reason, validl+ ithdra one9s vote, there;+ preserving one9s freedo ofaction.

In su , e hold that 8iraogoKs 4otion for Reconsideration ith 5ra+er for Oral &rgu ent ust ;e denied.3his Court did not err in ruling that the proper re ed+ of those ho a+ assail @i kaichong9s dis7ualification;ased on citi!enship is to file ;efore the ?RE3 the proper petition at an+ ti e during her incu ;enc+.

A?ERE ORE, the 4otion for Reconsideration ith 5ra+er for Oral &rgu ent filed ;+ petitioner @ouis C.8iraogo in B.R. No. $*($0= is DENIED ith IN&@I3 .

SO ORDERED.

Page | 52







# 50 EN 8&NC

G.R. Nos. 8 6 0 1 No<% >%( , 1989

!ANTRUSTE SYSTE!S, INC., petitioner, vs. T"E "ON. COURT O) A EALS, ASSET RIVATI4ATIONTRUST, !AQATI AGRO TRADING, INC., +$ LA )ILI INA UY GONGCO. COR .,respondents.

GRI O A UINO,J.:

In this petition for revie , 4antruste S+ste s, Inc. #or 4SI seeks the annul ent of the decision datedSepte ;er 0(, $()) and the resolution dated :anuar+ 2, $()( of the Court of &ppeals in the consolidatedcases of 9Ma)ati !(ro4-radin(, nc., et al. vs. Jud(e Job Madaya(, et al.9 #C&-B.R. S5 No. $1(0(%and 9!sset rivatization -rust vs. Jud(e Job Madaya(, et al.9 #C&-B.R. S5 No. $2'1'% hich set aside the

rit of preli inar+ injunction that as issued on Dece ;er $(, $()* ;+ :udge 4ada+ag in Civil Case No.$)1$( of the Regional 3rial Court of 4anila #<4antruste S+ste s, Inc. vs. Develop ent 8ank of the5hilippines, &sset 5rivati!ation 3rust, 4akati &gro-3rading, Inc. and @a ilipina >+ Bongco Corporation<%.:udge 4ada+ag enjoined the defendants in. that case fro doing the acts stated in its te porar+ restrainingorder of Nove ;er $1, $()*, na el+"

... fro approving the inning ;id and a arding the 8& VIEA propert+, su;ject atter of this case,in favor of the inning ;idders, the herein defendants, 4akati &gro-3rading, Inc. and @a ilipina >+-Bongco Corporation/

enjoining the Defendants D85 and &53 fro taking ph+sical possession of the 8& VIEA propert+,or ejecting the plaintiff and its concessionaires, representatives and agents, fro the leasedpre ises/

fro ter inating the Contract of @ease #&nne6 N%/ and

fro distur;ing and o;structing the plaintiff, through the defendants9 designated securit+ guards, in

the pursuit of its ;usiness in the leased pre ises, until further orders fro this Court. #p. $), Rollo.%

3he facts are stated in the decision of the Court of &ppeals as follo s"

... ?erein private respondent 4antruste S+ste , Inc. #4SI% entered into an 2 <interi leaseagree ent< dated &ugust 0 , $() ith 5age $1( the Develop ent 8ank of the 5hilippines Fo ner of the 8a+vie 5la!a ?otel F herein the for er ould operate the hotel for <a ini u ofthree onths or until such ti e that the said properties are sold to 4SI or other third parties ;+ D85.<

On Dece ;er ), $() the 5resident issued 5rocla ation No. '= entitled <@aunching a 5rogra forthe E6peditious Disposition or 5rivati!ation of Certain Bovern ent Corporations and or the#ac7uired% &ssets thereof, and creating a Co ittee on 5rivati!ation and the &sset 5rivati!ation3rust.< 3he 8a+vie ?otel properties ere a ong the govern ent assets Identified for privati!ationand ere conse7uentl+ transferred fro D85 to &53 for disposition.

3o effect the disposition of the propert+, the D85 notified 4SI that it as ter inating the <interilease agree ent.< In a certificate dated Septe ;er $), $()* signed ;+ Ernesto S. Salgado,5resident and Chair an of the 8oard of herein private respondent #&nne6 D/ E6h. 0-&53% the latteragreed to the ter ination ith the follo ing ter s"

$. 3hirt+ da+s fro toda+ as of the signing of this Certification, I ill consider the@ease Contract ;et een 4&N3R>S3E S S3E4, INC. and DEVE@O54EN3 8&NO 3?E 5?I@I55INES ter inated.

Page | 53



0. 3he 8a+vie 5rince ?otel ill ;e ade availa;le for inspection at all ti es ;+other ;idders.

1. 3he 8a+vie 5rince ?otel ill ;e read+ for deliver+ to an+ ne o ners thirt+ #1=%da+s fro signing of this Certification.

On Octo;er *, $()* the &53 sent a letter to 4SI through 4r. Salgado granting the latter an e6tensionof thirt+ da+s fro Octo;er $) < ithin hich to effect the deliver+ of the 8a+vie 5rince ?otel to

&53.< 3he e6tension as given to <allo #4SI% to ind up #its% affairs and to facilitate a s ooth turn-over of the facilities to its ne o ners ithout necessaril+ interrupting the hotel9s regular operation.<3he signature of 4r. Salgado appears on the lo er left hand of the letter under the ord<CON OR4E.<

?o ever, fifteen da+s later, or on Octo;er 00, $()*, 4SI F through its E6ecutive Vice-5residentRolando C. Cipriano F infor ed &53 of the follo ing points"

666 666 666

4SI is of the opinion . . . since its lease on the hotel properties has ;een for orethan one +ear no , its lease status has taken the character of a long ter one. &ssuch 4SI as the lessee has ac7uired certain rights and privileges under la ande7uit+.

666 666 666

. . . it is the co pan+9s fir contention that it has ac7uired a priorit+ right to thepurchase of 8a+vie ?otel properties over and a;ove other interested parties . . .#&nne6 , petition, S5-$2'1'%.

&539s response to this de and as e7uall+ fir . It infor ed 4SI that &53 has <. . . not found an+stipulation tending to support +our clai that 4antruste S+ste , Inc., as lessee, has ac7uired ...

priorit+ right to the purchase of 8a+vie ?otel . . .< 3he 3rust also pointed out that the <5re-8iddingConference< for the sale of the hotel has alread+ ;een conducted such that for &53 to favora;l+consider +our #4SI9s% re7uest ould not ;e in consonance ith la , e7uit+ and fair pla+ #&nne6 B,Ide %

On Octo;er 0), Salgado, speaking for 4SI, rote &53 infor ing the latter of the alleged <legal lien<over the hotel to the a ount of 5$=,===,=== #should ;e 5$0,===,===%. 4oreover, he de anded thatthe 3rust consider 4SI a <ver+ preferred< ;idder. Nevertheless, on Nove ;er 2, $()* herein privaterespondent allegedl+ prepared to su; it its ;id to the &53 for 5(',===,===.== in cash or5$0=,===,=== in install ent ter s.

On the sa e occasion, ho ever, 4SI asked the 3rust for clarification on the follo ing points" #$%hether &53 had a clean title over the propert+/ #0% hether the 3rust kne the hotel had ;ack

ta6es/ #1% ho should pa+ the ta6 arrears/ and #2% hether 4SI9S advances ade in ;ehalf of D85ould ;e treated as part of the ;id offer.

ro there, the versions of the 4SI and the 3rust differed. &ccording to herein private respondent,;ecause of the 7uestions it posed to the 3rust, it as <i ediatel+ dis7ualified fro the pu;lic;idding.< 3he trust alleged on the other hand that 4SI voluntaril+ desisted fro participating in the;idding. 3he propert+ eventuall+ as a arded to herein petitioners 4akati-&gro 3rading and @a

ilipina >+ Bongco Corporation hich su; itted a ;id for 5)1,===,=== #should ;e 5)',===,===%.

Page | 54



On Nove ;er $1, $()$, herein private respondent filed a co plaint ith respondent lo er court Fdocketed as Civil Case No. $)1$( F pra+ing a ong others for" #$% the issuance of a restrainingorder enjoining &53 fro approving the inning ;id and a arding the 8a+vie propert+ to privatepetitioners, and fro ejecting 4SI fro the propert+ or fro ter inating the contract of lease/ #0% thea ard of the 8a+vie propert+ in favor of 4SI as the highest ;idder. On Dece ;er $', $(1*, thelo er court, as alread+ said, granted the rit of preli inar+ injunction. #pp. 02*- 0'=, Rollo.%

3he Court of &ppeals nullified the lo er court9s rit of preli inar+ injunction for ;eing violative of Section 1$

of 5rocla ation No. '=-& dated Dece ;er $',$() , hich provides"

No court or ad inistrative agenc+ shall issue an+ restraining order or injunction against the 3rust inconnection ith the ac7uisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it . . . Nor shall such order or injunction ;e issued against an+ purchaser of assets sold ;+ the 3rust to prevent such purchaserfro taking possession of an+ assets purchased ;+ hi .

3he Court of &ppeals rejected :udge 4ada+ag9s opinion that the a;ove provision of 5rocla ation No. '=-&is unconstitutional ;ecause" #$% it ceased to ;e operative in vie of the $()* Constitution/ #0% it constitutes adeprivation of propert+ ithout due process of la / and #1% it i pinges upon the judicial po er as defined inSection $, &rticle VIII of the $()* Constitution. 3he Court of &ppeals held that"

#$% 5rocla ation No. '=-& continued to ;e operative after the effectivit+ of the $()* Constitution, ;+ virtue ofSection 1, &rticle VIII #3ransitor+ 5rovisions% providing that"

$ec . 1. &ll e6isting la s, decrees, e6ecutive orders, procla ations, letters of instructions and othere6ecutive issuances not inconsistent ith this Constitution shall re ain operative until a ended,repealed, or revoked.

#0% Section 1$ of 5rocla ation No. '=-& does not deprive 4SI of its propert+ e6istent, and its ;elief thatD85 had declared it to ;e the preferred ;u+er of the hotel is <illusor+.< Its onl+ <propert+ right< as itsrei ;ursa;le advances allegedl+ a ounting to 5$0 illion #;ut denied ;+ D85 in its ans er to theco plaint% hich, it a+ sue to collect in a separate action.

#1% In vie of Section 1$ of 5rocla ation No. '=-&, the issuance of a rit of preli inar+ injunction ;+ thelo er court against the &53 a+ not ;e justified as a valid e6ercise of po er, i.e., the po er to settle actualcontroversies involving rights hich are legall+ de anda;le and enforcea;le, for does not have a legall+de anda;le and enforcea;le right of retention over the hotel. In an+ case, judicial po er is <not un7ualified.<It a+ ;e regulated and defined ;+ the Constitution #Sec. 0, &rt. VIII, $()* Constitution% and ;+ la , and thela in this particular case #Sec. 1$, 5rocl. No. '=-&% provides that judicial po er a+ not ;e e6ercised in thefor of an injunction against the acts of the &53 in pursuance of its andate.

3he seven grounds of this petition for certiorari a+ ;e co pressed into the follo ing propositions"

#$% that the Court of &ppeals gravel+ a;used its discretion in su;stituting its o n discretion for that of the trial

court on the propriet+ of issuing the rit of preli inar+ injunction to preserve the status quo and to protect4antruste9s contractual right to retain possession of the 8a+vie ?otel until all its advances are paid/ and

#0% that the Court of &ppeals erred" #a% in holding that 4antruste9s propert+ rights are non-e6istent e6cept itsright to the refund of its alleged advances/ #;% in not declaring unconstitutional Section 1$ of 5rocla ation'=-& prohi;iting the issuance of an injunction against the &53 and #c% in finding that 4antruste is to ;la efor its failure to participate in the ;idding for the 8a+vie ?otel

Ae find no erit in the petition.

Page | 55



Ahile the ell-kno n and ;asic purpose of a preli inar+ injunction is to preserve the status quo of thepropert+ su;ject of the action to protect the rights of the plaintiff respecting the sa e during the pendenc+ ofthe suit #Calo vs. Roldan, * 5hil. 22', 2'0/ @asala vs. ernande!, ' SCR& *(/ Rivera vs. lorendo, $22SCR& 21%, and that generall+, the e6ercise of sound judicial discretion ;+ the lo er court ill not ;einterfered ith #Rodulfa vs. &lfonso, * 5hil. 00', 010%, the Court of &ppeals ho ever correctl+ found that,under the lease agree ent ;et een the D85 and 4antruste, the latter9s clai to a <patent contractual rightto retain possession of the 8a+vie ?otel until all its advances are paid< is non-e6istent. &s the right ofretention does not e6ist, neither does the right to the relief #injunction% de anded #Sec. 1, Rule '), Rules ofCourt%.

urther ore, there is Section 1$ of 5rocla ation No. '=-& to ;e reckoned ith hich e6plicitl+ prohi;itscourts and ad inistrative agencies fro issuing <an+ restraining order or injunction against the 3rust &53 inconnection ith the ac7uisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it, nor against an+ purchaser ofassets sold ;+ the 3rust to prevent such purchaser fro taking possession of an+ assets purchased ;+ hi .<Ahile the petitioner decries the <pro;a;le injustice< that it ill suffer if it is ousted fro the hotel andpossession of the propert+ is delivered to the private respondents as the inning ;idders purchasers at thepu;lic auction sale, the greater prejudice and injustice to the latter ho, after pa+ing 5)' illion to purchasethe hotel have ;een deprived of its possession ;+ the illegal issuance of the rit of injunction, a+ not ;eglossed over. On the other hand, as indicated ;+ the &ppellate Court, the petitioner is not ithout ade7uatere ed+ to recover its alleged 5$0 illion advances on ;ehalf of the D85 to ake the hotel operational. It

a+ sue either the D85, or its successor-in-interest, the &53 for pa+ ent of the clai .

4antruste9s right to rei ;urse ent for those advances #the e6act a ount of hich re ains to ;edeter ined% a+ not ;e denied. ?o ever, its clai to a right of retention over the hotel pending suchrei ;urse ent, is, as as correctl+ found ;+ the Court of &ppeals, <illusor+< and <non-e6istent.< & erelessee, like 4antruste, is not a ;uilder in good faith, hence, the right of retention given to a possessor ingood faith under &rticle '2 of the Civil Code, pending rei ;urse ent of his advances for necessar+ repairsand useful i prove ents on another9s propert+ is not availa;le to a lessee hose possession is not that ofan o ner.

& lessee is not entitled to retain possession of the pre ises leased until he is rei ;ursed for allegedi prove ents thereon, for a lessee cannot pretend to act in good faith in aking i prove ents.

& lessee, in order to ;e entitled to one half the value of the i prove ents introduced ;+ hi in theleased pre ises, or to re ove the should lessor refuse to rei ;urse the half value thereof, ustsho that the sa e ere introduced in good faith/ are useful/ suita;le to the use for hich the leaseis intended ithout altering the for and su;stance of the pre ises. # mperial nsurance, nc. vs.$imon, ?7 SCR& )''.%

5etitioner9s contention that he is a ;uilder in good faith for hich reason he a+ not he evictedunless he is inde nified for the cost of his i prove ents on the leased pre ises, has no erit.

no ing that his right to occup+ the pre ises as te porar+, he is dee ed to have ;uilt his houseat his o n risk. # Lopez, nc. vs. hil. K astern -radin( Co., nc., () 5hil. 12).%

It is a settled rule that lessees are not possessors in good faith, ;ecause the+ kno that theiroccupanc+ of the pre ises continues onl+ during the life of the lease, hence the+ cannot, as a

atter of right, recover the value of their i prove ents fro the lessor, uch less retain thepre ises until the+ are rei ;ursed therefor. # *acalin( vs. La(una, et al ., '2 SCR& 021.%

Section 1$ of 5rocla ation No. '=-& does not infringe an+ provision of the Constitution. It does not i pairthe inherent po er of courts <to settle actual controversies hich are legall+ de anda;le and enforcea;leand to deter ine hether or not there has ;een a grave a;use of discretion a ounting to lack or e6cess of

jurisdiction on the part of an+ ;ranch or instru entalit+ of the govern ent< #Sec. $, &rt. VIII, $()*Constitution%. 3he po er to define, prescri;e and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts ;elongs to

Page | 56



the legislature, e6cept that it a+ not deprive the Supre e Court of its jurisdiction over cases enu erated inSection ', &rticle VIII of the Constitution #Sec. 0, &rt. VIII, $()* Constitution%.

3he 5resident, in the e6ercise of her legislative po er under the reedo Constitution, issued 5rocla ationNo. '=-& prohi;iting the courts fro issuing restraining orders and rits of injunction against the &53 andthe purchasers of an+ assets sold ;+ it, to prevent courts fro interfering in the discharge, ;+ thisinstru entalit+ of the e6ecutive ;ranch of the Bovern ent, of its task of carr+ing out <the e6peditiousdisposition and privati!ation of certain govern ent corporations and or the assets thereof9 #5roc. No. '=%,

a;sent an+ grave a;use of discretion a ounting to e6cess or lack of jurisdiction on its part. 3hisprocla ation, not ;eing inconsistent ith the Constitution and not having ;een repealed or revoked ;+Congress, has re ained operative #Sec. 1, &rt. VIII, $()* Constitution%.

Ahile the judicial po er a+ appear to ;e pervasive, the truth is that under the s+ste of separation ofpo ers set up in the Constitution, the po er of the courts over the other ;ranches and instru entalities ofthe Bovern ent is li ited onl+ to the deter ination of < hether or not there has ;een a grave a;use ofdiscretion #;+ the % a ounting to lack or e6cess of jurisdiction< in the e6ercise of their authorit+ and in theperfor ance of 5age $2' their assigned tasks #Sec. $, &rt. VIII, $()* Constitution%. Courts a+ notsu;stitute their judg ent for that of the &53, nor ;lock, ;+ an injunction, the discharge of its functions andthe i ple entation of its decisions in connection ith the ac7uisition, sale or disposition of assetstransferred to it.

3here can ;e no justification for judicial interference in the ;usiness of an ad inistrative agenc+, e6cepthen it violates a citi!en9s constitutional rights, or co its a grave a;use of discretion, or acts in e6cess of,

or ithout jurisdiction.

3he Court of &ppeals correctl+ ruled that paragraph 0 of the Contract of @ease hich provides"

0. 3he ter of the lease is a ini u of three #1% onths or until such time that said properties aresold to M$ or other third parties ;+ D85 #p. $, &nne6 N of &nne6 & hereof/ E6h. I.%

does not give 4antruste preferred standing or <a right of first refusal< as a prospective ;u+er of the 8a+vie?otel. 3hat provision of the lease contract gives it onl+ the right, e7uall+ ith others, to ;id for the propert+.

In an+ event, assu ing that 4antruste did have that preferred status #for it as assured ;+ Estela @adrido,D859s officer-in-charge of the 8a+vie ?otel, that <all things e7ual #sic% D85 ould ;e ore inclined to sellthe 8a+vie propert+ to 4SI 4antruste lost that preferential right ;+ failing to participate in the ;idding forthe propert+. Its allegation that it ould have su; itted a higher ;id than the inning ;idders, is futile, for thefact is that it did not su; it a ;id. Its e6cuses for failing to do so are unconvincing. 3he real reason is difficultto fatho ;ut the follo ing state ent in its petition F

Considering that 4antruste has ade capital e6penditures of ore than 5$0 illion, then this ouldean an uninterrupted, peaceful and continued possession ;+ 4antruste of 8a+vie for ore than

t ent+ #0=% +ears in order to co plete the offsetting process. #p. 22, 5etition.%

a+ provide a clue. 4antruste a+ have ;anked on its alleged advance of 5$0 illion to keep it inpossession of the hotel for 0= +ears, ithout having to ;u+ it at the &539s auction.

A?ERE ORE, finding no reversi;le error in the decision of the Court of &ppeals, the petition for revie isdis issed for lack of erit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 57



# 51 IRS3 DIVISION

G.R. No. 77375 A (*= 59, 1988

LU O L. LU ANGCO, RAY!OND S. !ANGQAL, NOR!AN A. !ESINA, ALE:ANDER R. REGUYAL,OCELYN . CATA ANG, ENRICO V. REGALADO, ERO!E O. ARCEGA, ERNESTOC. BLAS, R.,

EL EDIO !. AL!A4AN, QARL CAESAR R. RI!ANDO, petitioner,

vs.COURT O) A EALS +$ RO)ESSIONAL REGULATION CO!!ISSION, respondent.

GANCAYCO,J.:

Is the Regional 3rial Court of the sa e categor+ as the 5rofessional Regulation Co ission so that itcannot pass upon the validit+ of the ad inistrative acts of the latterL Can this Co ission la full+ prohi;itthe e6a iness fro attending revie classes, receiving handout aterials, tips, or the like three #1% da+s;efore the date of the e6a inationL 3heses are the issues presented to the court ;+ this petition forcertiorari to revie the decision of the Court of &ppeals pro ulagated on :anuar+ $1, $()*, in C&-B.R. S5No. $='(), declaring null and void the other dated Oco;er 0$, $() issued ;+ the Regional 3rial Court of4anila, 8ranch 10 in Civil Case No. ) -1*('= entitled < @upo @. @upangco, et al. vs. 5rofessional RegulationCo ission.<

3he records sho s the follo ing undisputed facts"

On or a;out Octo;er , $() , herein respondent 5rofessional Regulation Co ission #5RC% issuedResolution No. $=' as parts of its <&dditional Instructions to E6a iness,< to all those appl+ing for ad issionto take the licensure e6a inations in accountanc+. 3he resolution e ;odied the follo ing pertinentprovisions"

No e6a inee shall attend an+ revie class, ;riefing, conference or the like conducted ;+, or shallreceive an+ hand-out, revie aterial, or an+ tip fro an+ school, college or universit+, or an+ revie

center or the like or an+ revie er, lecturer, instructor official or e plo+ee of an+ of theafore entioned or si ilars institutions during the three da+s i ediatel+ proceeding ever+e6a ination da+ including e6a ination da+.

&n+ e6a inee violating this instruction shall ;e su;ject to the sanctions prescri;ed ;+ Sec. ), &rt. IIIof the Rules and Regulations of the Co ission. 1

On Octo;er $ , $() , herein petitioners, all revie ees preparing to take the licensure e6a inations inaccountanc+ schedule on Octo;er 0' and Nove ;er 0 of the sa e +ear, filed on their o n ;ehalf of allothers si ilarl+ situated like the , ith the Regional 3rial Court of 4anila, 8ranch II, a co plaint forinjuction ith a pra+er ith the issuance of a rit of a preli inar+ injunction against respondent 5RC torestrain the latter fro enforcing the a;ove- entioned resolution and to declare the sa e unconstitution.

Respondent 5RC filed a otion to dis iss on Octo;er 0$, $()* on the ground that the lo er court had no jurisdiction to revie and to enjoin the enforce ent of its resolution. In an Order of Octo;er 0$, $()*, thelo er court declared that it had jurisdiction to tr+ the case and enjoined the respondent co ission froenforcing and giving effect to Resolution No. $=' hich it found to ;e unconstitutional.

Not satisfied there ith, respondent 5RC, on Nove ;er $=, $() , filed ith the Court of &ppeals a petitionfor the nullification of the a;ove Order of the lo er court. Said petiton as granted in the Decision of theCourt of &ppeals pro ulagated on :anuar+ $1, $()*, to it"

Page | 58



A?ERE ORE, finding the petition eritorious the sa e is here;+ BR&N3ED and the other datedOcto;er 0$, $() issued ;+ respondent court is declared null and void. 3he respondent court isfurther directed to dis iss ith prejudice Civil Case No. ) -1*('= for ant of jurisdiction over thesu;ject atter thereof. No cost in this instance.

SO ORDERED. 5

?ence, this petition.

3he Court of &ppeals, in deciding that the Regional 3rial Court of 4anila had no jurisdiction to entertain thecase and to enjoin the enforce ent of the Resolution No. $=', stated as its ;asis its conclusion that the5rofessional Regulation Co ission and the Regional 3rial Court are co-e7ual ;odies. 3hus it held F

3hat the petitioner 5rofessional Regulator+ Co ission is at least a co-e7ual ;od+ ith theRegional 3rial Court is ;e+ond 7uestion, and co-e7ual ;odies have no po er to control each other or interfere ith each other9s acts. 3

3o strenghten its position, the Court of &ppeals relied heavil+ on >ational lectrification !dministration vs.Mendoza, 4 %hich cites ineda vs. Lantin and hilippine acific 5ishin(, nc. vs. Luna, here this Courtheld that a Court of irst Instance cannot interfere ith the orders of the Securities and E6changeCo ission, the t o ;eing co-e7ual ;odies.

&fter a close scrutin+ of the facts and the record of this case,

Ae rule in favor of the petitioner.

3he cases cited ;+ respondent court are not in point. It is glaringl+ apparent that the reason h+ this Courtruled that the Court of irst Instance could not interfere ith the orders of the Securities and E6changeCo ission as that this as so provided for ;+ the la . In ineda vs. Lantin , Ae e6plained that henevera part+ is aggrieved ;+ or disagree ith an order or ruling of the Securities and E6change Co ission, hecannot seek relief fro courts of general jurisdiction since under the Rules of Court and Co on ealth &ct

No. )1, as a ended ;+ Repu;lic &ct No. 1', creating and setting forth the po ers and functions of the oldSecurities and E6change Co ission, his re ed+ is to go the Supre e Court on a petition for revie .@ike ise, in hilippine acific 5ishin( Co., nc. vs. Luna, it as stressed that if an order of the Securities andE6change Co ission is erroneous, the appropriate re ed+ take is first, ithin the Co ission itself, then,to the Supre e Court as andated in 5residential Decree No. (=0-&, the la creating the ne Securitiesand E6change Co ission. No here in the said cases as it held that a Court of irst Instance has no

jurisdiction over all other govern ent agencies. On the contrar+, the ruling as specificall+ li ited to theSecurities and E6change Co ission.

3he respondent court erred hen it place the Securities and E6change Co ission and the 5rofessionalRegulation Co sision in the sa e categor+. &s alraed+ entioned, ith respect to the Securities andE6change Co ission, the la s cited e6plicitl+ provide ith the procedure that need ;e taken hen one is

aggrieved ;+ its order or ruling. >pon the other hand, there is no la providing for the ne6t course of actionfor a part+ ho ants to 7uestion a ruling or order of the 5rofessional Regulation Co ission. >nlikeCo on ealth &ct No. )1 and 5residential Decree No. (=0-&, there is no provision in 5residential DecreeNo. 001, creating the 5rofessional Regulation Co ission, that orders or resolutions of the Co ission areappeala;le either to the Court of &ppeals or to theSupre e Court. Conse7uentl+, Civil Case No. ) -1*('=,

hich as filed in order to enjoin the enforce ent of a resolution of the respondent 5rofessional RegulationCo ission alleged to ;e unconstitutional, should fall ithin the general jurisdiction of the Court of irstInstance, no the Regional 3rial Court. 7

Ahat is clear fro 5residential Decree No. 001 is that the 5rofessional Regulation Co ission is attachedto the Office of the 5resident for general direction and coordination. 8 Aell settled in our jurisprudence is the

Page | 59



vie that even acts of the Office of the 5resident a+ ;e revie ed ;+ the Court of irst Instance #no theRegional 3rial Court%. In Medalla vs. $ayo, 9 this rule as thoroughl+ propounded on, to it"

In so far as jurisdiction of the Court ;elo to revie ;+ certiorari decisions and or resolutions of theCivil Service Co ission and of the residential E6ecutive &sssistant is concerned, there should ;eno 7uestion ;ut that the po er of judicial revie should ;e upheld. 3he follo ing rulings ;uttress thisconclusion"

3he o;jection to a judicial revie of a 5residential act arises fro a failure torecogni!e the ost i portant principle in our s+ste of govern ent, i.e., theseparation of po ers into three co-e7ual depart ents, the e6ecutives, the legislativeand the judicial, each supre e ithin its o n assigned po ers and duties. Ahen apresidential act is challenged ;efore the courts of justice, it is not to ;e i pliedtherefro that the E6ecutive is ;eing ade su;ject and su;ordinate to the courts.3he legalit+ of his acts are under judicial revie , not ;ecause the E6ecutive is inferior to the courts, ;ut ;ecause the la is a;ove the Chief E6ecutive hi self, and thecourts seek onl+ to interpret, appl+ or i ple ent it #the la %. & judicial revie of the5resident9s decision on a case of an e plo+ee decided ;+ the Civil Service 8oard of

&ppeals should ;e vie ed in this light and the ;ringing of the case to the Courtsshould ;e governed ;+ the sa e principles as govern the jucucial revie of all

ad inistrative acts of all ad inistrative officers. 10

Bepublic vs. residin( Jud(e, C5 of Lanao del >orte, *r. , 11 is another case in point. ?ere, <the E6ecutiveOffice<9 of the Depart ent of Education and Culture issued 4e orandu Order No. (1 under the authorit+of then Secretar+ of Education :uan 4anuel. &s in this case, a co plaint for injunction as filed ith theCourt of irst Instance of @anao del Norte ;ecause, allegedl+, the enforce ent of the circular ould i pairso e contracts alread+ entered into ;+ pu;lic school teachers. It as the contention of petitioner therein that<the Court of irst Instance is not e po ered to a end, reverse and odif+ hat is other ise the clear ande6plicit provision of the e orandu circular issued ;+ the E6ecutive Office hich has the force and effectof la .< In resolving the issue, Ae held"

... Ae definitel+ state that respondent Court la full+ ac7uired jurisdiction in Civil Case No. II-02= #)%;ecause the plaintiff therein asked the lo er court for relief, in the for of injunction, in defense of alegal right #freedo to enter into contracts% . . . . .

?ence there is a clear infringe ent of private respondent9s constitutional right to enter intoagree ents not contrar+ to la , hich ight run the risk of ;eing violated ;+ the threatenedi ple entation of E6ecutive Office 4e orandu Circular No. (1, dated e;ruar+ ', $( ), hichprohi;its, ith certain e6ceptions, cashiers and dis;ursing officers fro honoring special po ers ofattorne+ e6ecuted ;+ the pa+ee e plo+ees. -he respondent Court is not only ri(ht but duty bound tota)e co(nizance of cases of this nature %herein a constitutional and statutory ri(ht is alle(edlyinfrin(ed by the administrative action of a (overnment office. Courts of first nstance have ori(inal

jurisdiction over all civil actions in %hich the subject of the liti(ation is not capable of pecuniary

estimation "$ec. 77, Bepublic !ct 6 &, as amended# .15

#E phasis supplied.%

In $an Mi(uel Corporation vs. !velino , 13 Ae ruled that a judge of the Court of irst Instance has theauthorit+ to decide on the validit+ of a cit+ ta6 ordinance even after its validit+ had ;een contested ;efore theSecretar+ of :ustice and an opinion thereon had ;een rendered.

In vie of the foregoing, Ae find no cogent reason h+ Resolution No. $=', issued ;+ the respondent5rofessional Regulation Co ission, should ;e e6e pted fro the general jurisdiction of the Regional 3rialCourt.

Page | 60



Respondent 5RC, on the other hand, contends that under Section (, paragraph 1 of 8.5. 8lg. $0(, it is theCourt of &ppeals hich has jurisdiction over the case. 3he said la provides"

SEC. (. Jurisdiction . F 3he Inter ediate &ppellate Court shall e6ercise"

666 666 666

#1% E6clusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judg ents, decisions, resolutions, orders, or a ards

of Regional 3rial Courts and quasi4judicial agencies, instru entalities, ;oards or co issions,e6cept those falling ithin the appellate jurisdiction of the Supre e Court in accordance ith theConstitution, the provisions of this &ct, and of su;paragraph #$% of the third paragraph andsu;paragraph #2% of the fourth paragraph of Section $* of the :udiciar+ &ct of $(2).

3he contention is devoid of erit.

In order to invoke the e6clusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of &ppeals as provided for in Section (,paragraph 1 of 8.5. 8lg. $0(, there has to ;e a final order or ruling hich resulted fro proceedings hereinthe ad inistrative ;od+ involved e6ercised its quasi4judicial functions. In 8lack9s @a Dictionar+, quasi4

judicial is defined as a ter applied to the action, discretion, etc., of pu;lic ad inistrative officers or ;odiesre7uired to investigate facts, or ascertain the e6istence of facts, hold hearings, and dra conclusions frothe , as a ;asis for their official action, and to e6ercise discretion of a judicial nature. 3o e6poundthereon, quasi4judicial adjudication ould ean a deter ination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in adecision or order hich applies to a specific situation . 1 3his does not cover rules and regulations ofgeneral applica;ilit+ issued ;+ the ad inistrative ;od+ to i ple ent its purel+ ad inistrative policies andfunctions like Resolution No. $=' hich as adopted ;+ the respondent 5RC as a easure to preserve theintegrit+ of licensure e6a inations.

3he a;ove rule as adhered to in 5ilipinas n(ineerin( and Machine $hop vs. 5errer. 16 In this case, theissue presented as hether or not the Court of irst Instance had jurisdiction over a case involving anorder of the Co ission on Elections a arding a contract to a private part+ hich originated fro aninvitation to ;id. 3he said issue ca e a;out ;ecause under the la s then in force, final a ards, judg ents,decisions or orders of the Co ission on Elections fall ithin the e6clusive jurisdiction of the Supre eCourt ;+ a+ of certiorari. ?ence, it has ;een consistentl+ held that <it is the Supre e Court, not the Court of

irst Instance, hich has e6clusive jurisdiction to revie on certiorari final decisions, orders, or rulings of theCo ission on Elections relative to the conduct of elections and the enforce ent of election la s.< 1

&s to hether or not the Court of irst Instance had jurisdiction in saidcase, Ae said"

Ae are ho ever, far fro convinced that an order of the CO4E@EC a arding a contract to a privatepart+, as a result of its choice a ong various proposals su; itted in response to its invitation to ;idco es ithin the purvie of a <final order< hich is e6clusivel+ and directl+ appeala;le to this courton certiorari. Ahat is conte plated ;+ the ter <final orders, rulings and decisions, of the CO4E@ECrevie a;le ;+ certiorari ;+ the Supre e Court as provided ;+ la are those rendered in actions or

proceedings ;efore the CO4E@EC and taken cogni!ance of ;+ the said ;od+ in the eAercise of itsadjudicatory or quasi4judicial po%ers . #E phasis supplied.%

666 666 666

Ae agree ith petitioner9s contention that the order of the Co ission granting the a ard to a;idder is not an order rendered in a legal controvers+ ;efore it herein the parties filed theirrespective pleadings and presented evidence after hich the 7uestioned order as issued/ and thatthis order of the co ission as issued pursuant to its authorit+ to enter into contracts in relation toelection purposes. n short, the C+M L C resolution a%ardin( the contract in favor of !cme %asnot issued pursuant to its quasi4judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent

Page | 61



administrative functions over the conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution may not bedeemed as a 9final order revie%able by certiorari by the $upreme Court. 8eing non-judicial incharacter, no conte pt order a+ ;e i posed ;+ the CO4E@EC fro said order, and no direct ande6clusive appeal ;+ certiorari to this 3ri;unal lie fro such order. &n+ 7uestion arising fro saidorder a+ ;e ell taken in an ordinar+ civil action ;efore the trial courts. #E phasis supplied.% 17

One other case that should ;e entioned in this regard is $alud vs. Central *an) of the hilippines. 18 ?ere,petitioner Central 8ank, like respondent in this case, argued that under Section (, paragraph 1 of 8.5. 8lg.

$0(, orders of the 4onetar+ 8oard are appeala;le onl+ to the Inter ediate &ppellate Court. 3hus"

3he Central 8ank and its @i7uidator also postulate, for the ver+ first ti e, that the 4onetar+ 8oard isa ong the <7uasi-judicial ... ;oards< hose judg ents are ithin the e6clusive appellate jurisdictionof the I&C/ hence, it is onl+ said Court, <to the e6clusion of the Regional 3rial Courts,< that a+revie the 4onetar+ 8oard9s resolutions. 19

&nent the posture of the Central 8ank, Ae ade the follo ing pronounce ent"

3he contention is utterl+ devoid of erit. 3he I&C has no appellate jurisdiction over resolution ororders of the 4onetar+ 8oard. No la prescri;es an+ ode of appeal fro the 4onetar+ 8oard tothe I&C. 50

In vie of the foregoing, Ae hold that the Regional 3rial Court has jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. ) -1*('= and enjoin the respondent 5RC fro enforcing its resolution.

&lthough Ae have finall+ settled the issue of jurisdiction, Ae find it i perative to decide once and for all thevalidit+ of Resolution No. $=' so as to provide the uch a aited relief to those ho are and ill ;e affected;+ it.

Of course, Ae reali!e that the 7uestioned resolution as adopted for a co enda;le purpose hich is <topreserve the integrit+ and purit+ of the licensure e6a inations.< ?o ever, its good ai cannot ;e a cloak toconceal its constitutional infir ities. On its face, it can ;e readil+ seen that it is unreasona;le in that an

e6a inee cannot even attend any revie% class, briefin(, conference or the li)e, or receive any hand4out,revie% material, or any tip from any school, coll(e or university, or any revie% center or the li)e or anyrevie%er, lecturer, instructor, official or employee of any of the aforementioned or similar institutions . ... 51

3he unreasona;leness is ore o;vious in that one ho is caught co itting the prohi;ited acts evenithout an+ ill otives ill ;e ;arred fro taking future e6a inations conducted ;+ the respondent 5RC.urther ore, it is inconceiva;le ho the Co ission can anage to have a atchful e+e on each and ever+

e6a inee during the three da+s ;efore the e6a ination period.

It is an ai6io in ad inistrative la that ad inistrative authorities should not act ar;itraril+ and capriciousl+in the issuance of rules and regulations. 3o ;e valid, such rules and regulations ust ;e reasona;le andfairl+ adapted to the end in vie . If sho n to ;ear no reasona;le relation to the purposes for hich the+ are

authori!ed to ;e issued, then the+ ust ;e held to ;e invalid. 55

Resolution No. $=' is not onl+ unreasona;le and ar;itrar+, it also infringes on the e6a inees9 right to li;ert+guaranteed ;+ the Constitution. Respondent 5RC has no authorit+ to dictate on the revie ees as to hothe+ should prepare the selves for the licensure e6a inations. 3he+ cannot ;e restrained fro taking allthe la ful steps needed to assure the fulfill ent of their a ;ition to ;eco e pu;lic accountants. 3he+ haveever+ right to ake use of their faculties in attaining success in their endeavors. 3he+ should ;e allo ed toenjo+ their freedo to ac7uire useful kno ledge that ill pro ote their personal gro th. &s defined in adecision of the >nited States Supre e Court"

Page | 62



3he ter <li;ert+< eans ore than ere freedo fro ph+sical restraint or the ;ounds of a prison.It eans freedo to go here one a+ choose and to act in such a anner not inconsistent ith thee7ual rights of others, as his judg ent a+ dictate for the pro otion of his happiness, to pursuesuch callings and vocations as a+ ;e ost suita;le to develop his capacities, and giv to the theirhighest enjo+ ent. 53

&nother evident o;jection to Resolution No. $=' is that it violates the acade ic freedo of the schoolsconcerned. Respondent 5RC cannot interfere ith the conduct of revie that revie schools and centers

;elieve ould ;est ena;le their enrolees to eet the standards re7uired ;efore ;eco ing a full fledgedpu;lic accountant. >nless the eans or ethods of instruction are clearl+ found to ;e inefficient, i practical,or riddled ith corruption, revie schools and centers a+ not ;e stopped fro helping out their students. &tthis juncture, Ae call attention to Our pronounce ent in Garcia vs. -he 5aculty !dmission Committee,Loyola $chool of -heolo(y, 5 regarding acade ic freedo to it"

... It ould follo then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right. It decides foritself its ai s and o;jectives and ho ;est to attain the . It is free fro outside coercion orinterference save possi;l+ hen the overriding pu;lic elfare calls for so e restraint. It has a idesphere of autono + certainl+ e6tending to the choice of students. 3his constitutional provision is notto ;e construed in a niggardl+ anner or in a grudging fashion.

Needless to sa+, the enforce ent of Resolution No. $=' is not a guarantee that the alleged leakages in thelicensure e6a inations ill ;e eradicated or at least ini i!ed. 4aking the e6a inees suffer ;+ deprivingthe of legiti ate eans of revie or preparation on those last three precious da+s- hen the+ should ;erefreshing the selves ith all that the+ have learned in the revie classes and preparing their ental andps+chological ake-up for the e6a ination da+ itself- ould ;e like uprooting the tree to get ride of a rotten;ranch. Ahat is needed to ;e done ;+ the respondent is to find out the source of such leakages and stop itright there. If corrupt officials or personnel should ;e ter inated fro their loss, then so ;e it. i6ers ors indlers should ;e flushed out. Strict guidelines to ;e o;served ;+ e6a iners should ;e set up and ifviolations are co itted, then licenses should ;e suspended or revoked. 3hese are all ithin the po ers ofthe respondent co ission as provided for in 5residential Decree No. 001. 8ut ;+ all eans the right andfreedo of the e6a inees to avail of all legiti ate eans to prepare for the e6a inations should not ;ecurtailed.

In the light of the a;ove, Ae here;+ REVERSE and SE3 &SIDE, the decision of the Court of &ppeals in C&-B.R. S5 No. $='($ and another judg ent is here;+ rendered declaring Resolution No. $=' null and voidand of no force and effect for ;eing unconstitutional. 3his decision is i ediatel+ e6ecutor+. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 63



# 5 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. 191005 ! (-' 17, 5010

ARTURO !. DE CASTRO, 5etitioner, vs. UDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL BC/ +$ RESIDENTGLORIA !ACA AGAL ARROYO, Respondents.

6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -6

D E C I S I O N

BERSA!IN, J.:

3he co pulsor+ retire ent of Chief :ustice Re+nato S. 5uno ;+ 4a+ $*, 0=$= occurs just da+s after theco ing presidential elections on 4a+ $=, 0=$=. Even ;efore the event actuall+ happens, it is giving rise to

an+ legal dile as. 4a+ the incu ;ent 5resident appoint his successor, considering that Section $', &rticle VII #E6ecutive Depart ent% of the Constitution prohi;its the 5resident or &cting 5resident fro

aking appoint ents ithin t o onths i ediatel+ ;efore the ne6t presidential elections and up to the endof his ter , e6cept te porar+ appoint ents to e6ecutive positions hen continued vacancies therein illprejudice pu;lic service or endanger pu;lic safet+L Ahat is the relevance of Section 2 #$%, &rticle VIII#:udicial Depart ent% of the Constitution, hich provides that an+ vacanc+ in the Supre e Court shall ;efilled ithin (= da+s fro the occurrence thereof, to the atter of the appoint ent of his successorL 4a+ the:udicial and 8ar Council #:8C% resu e the process of screening the candidates no inated or ;eingconsidered to succeed Chief :ustice 5uno, and su; it the list of no inees to the incu ;ent 5resident evenduring the period of the prohi;ition under Section $', &rticle VIIL Does anda us lie to co pel thesu; ission of the shortlist of no inees ;+ the :8CL

5recUs of the Consolidated Cases

5etitioners &rturo 4. De Castro and :ohn B. 5eralta respectivel+ co enced B.R. No. $($==0 $ and B.R.

No. $($$2(0

as special civil actions for certiorari and anda us, pra+ing that the :8C ;e co pelled tosu; it to the incu ;ent 5resident the list of at least three no inees for the position of the ne6t Chief:ustice.

In B.R. No. $($=10, 1 :ai e N. Soriano, via his petition for prohi;ition, proposes to prevent the :8C froconducting its search, selection and no ination proceedings for the position of Chief :ustice.

In B.R. No. $($='*, a special civil action for anda us, 2 the 5hilippine Constitution &ssociation#5?I@CONS&% ants the :8C to su; it its list of no inees for the position of Chief :ustice to ;e vacated ;+Chief :ustice 5uno upon his retire ent on 4a+ $*, 0=$=, ;ecause the incu ;ent 5resident is not covered;+ the prohi;ition that applies onl+ to appoint ents in the E6ecutive Depart ent.

In &d inistrative 4atter No. $=-0-'-SC, ' petitioner Estelito 4. 4endo!a, a for er Solicitor Beneral, seeks aruling fro the Court for the guidance of the :8C on hether Section $', &rticle VII applies to appoint entsto the :udiciar+.

In B.R. No. $($120, hich the Court consolidated on 4arch (, 0=$= ith the petitions earlier filed,petitioners & ador M. 3olentino, :r. and Roland 8. Inting, Integrated 8ar of the 5hilippines #I85% Bovernorsfor Southern @u!on and Eastern Visa+as, respectivel+, ant to enjoin and restrain the :8C fro su; itting alist of no inees for the position of Chief :ustice to the 5resident for appoint ent during the period providedfor in Section $', &rticle VII.

Page | 64

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_191002_2010.html#fnt1















&ll the petitions no ;efore the Court pose as the principal legal 7uestion hether the incu ;ent 5residentcan appoint the successor of Chief :ustice 5uno upon his retire ent. 3hat 7uestion is undou;tedl+i pressed ith transcendental i portance to the Nation, ;ecause the appoint ent of the Chief :ustice isan+ 5residentKs ost i portant appoint ent.

& precedent fre7uentl+ cited is In Re &ppoint ents Dated 4arch 1=, $(() of ?on. 4ateo &. Valen!uela and?on. 5lacido 8. Vallarta as :udges of the Regional 3rial Court of 8ranch 0, 8ago Cit+ and of 8ranch 02,Ca;anatuan Cit+, respectivel+ #Valen!uela%, * ;+ hich the Court held that Section $', &rticle VII prohi;ited

the e6ercise ;+ the 5resident of the po er to appoint to judicial positions during the period therein fi6ed.

In B.R. No. $($==0, De Castro su; its that the conflicting opinions on the issue e6pressed ;+ legallu inaries J one side holds that the incu ;ent 5resident is prohi;ited fro aking appoint ents ithin t o

onths i ediatel+ ;efore the co ing presidential elections and until the end of her ter of office as5resident on :une 1=, 0=$=, hile the other insists that the prohi;ition applies onl+ to appoint ents toe6ecutive positions that a+ influence the election and, an+ a+, para ount national interest justifies theappoint ent of a Chief :ustice during the election ;an J has i pelled the :8C to defer the decision to hoto send its list of at least three no inees, hether to the incu ;ent 5resident or to her successor. ) ?eopines that the :8C is there;+ arrogating unto itself <the judicial function that is not conferred upon it ;+ theConstitution,< hich has li ited it to the task of reco ending appointees to the :udiciar+, ;ut has note po ered it to <finall+ resolve constitutional 7uestions, hich is the po er vested onl+ in the Supre e

Court under the Constitution.< &s such, he contends that the :8C acted ith grave a;use of discretion indeferring the su; ission of the list of no inees to the 5resident/ and that a <final and definitive resolution ofthe constitutional 7uestions raised a;ove ould diffuse #sic% the tension in the legal co unit+ that ould goa long a+ to keep and aintain sta;ilit+ in the judiciar+ and the political s+ste .< (

In B.R. No. $($=10, Soriano offers the vie that the :8C co itted a grave a;use of discretion a ountingto lack or e6cess of its jurisdiction hen it resolved unani ousl+ on :anuar+ $), 0=$= to open the search,no ination, and selection process for the position of Chief :ustice to succeed Chief :ustice 5uno, ;ecausethe appointing authorit+ for the position of Chief :ustice is the Supre e Court itself, the 5residentKs authorit+;eing li ited to the appoint ent of the 4e ;ers of the Supre e Court. ?ence, the :8C should notintervene in the process, unless a no inee is not +et a 4e ;er of the Supre e Court. $=

or its part, 5?I@CONS& o;serves in its petition in B.R. No. $($='* that <unorthodo6 and e6ceptionalcircu stances spa ned ;+ the discordant interpretations, due perhaps to a perfunctor+ understanding, ofSec. $', &rt. VII in relation to Secs. 2#$%, )#'% and (, &rt. VIII of the Constitution< have ;red <a fren!iedinfla ator+ legal de;ate on the constitutional provisions entioned that has divided the ;ench and the ;arand the general pu;lic as ell, ;ecause of its di ensional i pact to the nation and the people,< there;+fashioning <transcendental 7uestions or issues affecting the :8CKs proper e6ercise of its <principal function of reco ending appointees to the :udiciar+< ;+ su; itting onl+ to the 5resident #not to the ne6t 5resident% <alist of at least three no inees prepared ;+ the :udicial and 8ar Council for ever+ vacanc+< fro hich the

e ;ers of the Supre e Court and judges of the lo er courts a+ ;e appointed.< $$ 5?I@CONS& further;elieves and su; its that no is the ti e to revisit and revie Valen!uela, the <strange and e6otic Decisionof the Court en ;anc.< $0

5eralta states in his petition in B.R. No. $($$2( that anda us can co pel the :8C <to i ediatel+trans it to the 5resident, ithin a reasona;le ti e, its no ination list for the position of chief justice uponthe andator+ retire ent of Chief :ustice Re+nato S. 5uno, in co pliance ith its andated dut+ under theConstitution< in the event that the Court resolves that the 5resident can appoint a Chief :ustice even duringthe election ;an under Section $', &rticle VII of the Constitution. $1

3he petitioners in B.R. No. $($120 insist that there is an actual controvers+, considering that the <:8C hasinitiated the process of receiving applications for the position of Chief :ustice and has in fact ;egun theevaluation process for the applications to the position,< and <is perilousl+ near co pleting the no inationprocess and co ing up ith a list of no inees for su; ission to the 5resident, entering into the period of

Page | 65


















the ;an on idnight appoint ents on 4arch $=, 0=$=,< hich <onl+ highlights the pressing and co pellingneed for a rit of prohi;ition to enjoin such alleged inisterial function of su; itting the list, especiall+ if it

ill ;e cone ithin the period of the ;an on idnight appoint ents.< $2

&ntecedents

3hese cases trace their genesis to the controvers+ that has arisen fro the forthco ing co pulsor+retire ent of Chief :ustice 5uno on 4a+ $*, 0=$=, or seven da+s after the presidential election. >nder

Section 2#$%, in relation to Section (, &rticle VIII, that <vacanc+ shall ;e filled ithin ninet+ da+s fro theoccurrence thereof< fro a <list of at least three no inees prepared ;+ the :udicial and 8ar Council for ever+vacanc+.<

On Dece ;er 00, 0==(, Congress an 4atias V. Defensor, an e6 officio e ;er of the :8C, addressed aletter to the :8C, re7uesting that the process for no inations to the office of the Chief :ustice ;eco enced i ediatel+.

In its :anuar+ $), 0=$= eeting en ;anc, therefore, the :8C passed a resolution, $' hich reads"

3he :8C, in its en ;anc eeting of :anuar+ $), 0=$=, unani ousl+ agreed to start the process of filling upthe position of Chief :ustice to ;e vacated on 4a+ $*, 0=$= upon the retire ent of the incu ;ent Chief:ustice ?onora;le Re+nato S. 5uno.

It ill pu;lish the opening of the position for applications or reco endations/ deli;erate on the list ofcandidates/ pu;lish the na es of candidates/ accept co ents on or opposition to the applications/ conductpu;lic intervie s of candidates/ and prepare the shortlist of candidates.

&s to the ti e to su; it this shortlist to the proper appointing authorit+, in the light of the Constitution,e6isting la s and jurisprudence, the :8C elco es and ill consider all vie s on the atter.

$) :anuar+ 0=$=.

#sgd.%4&. @>IS& D. VI@@&R&4&Clerk of Court E6-Officio Secretar+:udicial and 8ar Council

&s a result, the :8C opened the position of Chief :ustice for application or reco endation, and pu;lishedfor that purpose its announce ent dated :anuar+ 0=, 0=$=, $ viz "

3he :udicial and 8ar Council #:8C% announces the opening for application or reco endation, of theposition of C?IE :>S3ICE O 3?E S>5RE4E CO>R3, hich ill ;e vacated on $* 4a+ 0=$= upon theretire ent of the incu ;ent Chief :ustice, ?ON. RE N&3O S. 5>NO.

&pplications or reco endations for this position ust ;e su; itted not later than 2 e;ruar+ 0=$=#3hursda+% to the :8C Secretariat 666"

3he announce ent as pu;lished on :anuar+ 0=, 0=$= in the 5hilippine Dail+ In7uirer and 3he 5hilippineStar .$*

Confor a;l+ ith its e6isting practice, the :8C <auto aticall+ considered< for the position of Chief :usticethe five ost senior of the &ssociate :ustices of the Court, na el+" &ssociate :ustice &ntonio 3. Carpio/

&ssociate :ustice Renato C. Corona/ &ssociate :ustice Conchita Carpio 4orales/ &ssociate :ustice

Page | 66













5res;itero :. Velasco, :r./ and &ssociate :ustice &ntonio Eduardo 8. Nachura. ?o ever, the last t odeclined their no ination through letters dated :anuar+ $), 0=$= and :anuar+ 0', 0=$=, respectivel+. $)

Others either applied or ere no inated. Victor ernande!, the retired Deput+ O ;uds an for @u!on,applied, ;ut later for all+ ithdre his na e fro consideration through his letter dated e;ruar+ ), 0=$=.Candidates ho accepted their no inations ithout conditions ere &ssociate :ustice Renato C. Corona/

&ssociate :ustice 3eresita :. @eonardo-De Castro/ &ssociate :ustice &rturo D. 8rion/ and &ssociate :usticeEdil;erto B. Sandoval #Sandigan;a+an%. Candidates ho accepted their no inations ith conditions ere

&ssociate :ustice &ntonio 3. Carpio and &ssociate :ustice Conchita Carpio 4orales.$(

Declining theirno inations ere &tt+. ?enr+ Villarica #via telephone conversation ith the E6ecutive Officer of the :8C one;ruar+ ', 0=$=% and &tt+. Bregorio 4. 8atiller, :r. #via telephone conversation ith the E6ecutive Officer of

the :8C on e;ruar+ ), 0=$=%. 0=

3he :8C e6cluded fro consideration for er R3C :udge lorentino loro #for failure to eet the standardsset ;+ the :8C rules%/ and Special 5rosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio of the Office of the O ;uds an #due tocases pending in the Office of the O ;uds an%. 0$

In its eeting of e;ruar+ ), 0=$=, the :8C resolved to proceed to the ne6t step of announcing the na es of the follo ing candidates to invite the pu;lic to file their s orn co plaint, ritten report, or opposition, if an+,not later than e;ruar+ 00, 0=$=, to it" &ssociate :ustice Carpio, &ssociate :ustice Corona, &ssociate

:ustice Carpio 4orales, &ssociate :ustice @eonardo-De Castro, &ssociate :ustice 8rion, and &ssociate:ustice Sandoval. 3he announce ent ca e out in the 5hilippine Dail+ In7uirer and 3he 5hilippine Starissues of e;ruar+ $1, 0=$=. 00

Issues

&lthough it has alread+ ;egun the process for the filling of the position of Chief :ustice 5uno in accordanceith its rules, the :8C is not +et decided on hen to su; it to the 5resident its list of no inees for the

position due to the controvers+ no ;efore us ;eing +et unresolved. In the ean hile, ti e is arching in7uick step to ards 4a+ $*, 0=$= hen the vacanc+ occurs upon the retire ent of Chief :ustice 5uno.

3he actions of the :8C have sparked a vigorous de;ate not onl+ a ong legal lu inaries, ;ut also a ongnon-legal 7uarters, and ;rought out highl+ disparate opinions on hether the incu ;ent 5resident canappoint the ne6t Chief :ustice or not. 5etitioner 4endo!a notes that in Valen!uela, hich involved theappoint ents of t o judges of the Regional 3rial Court, the Court addressed this issue no ;efore us as anad inistrative atter <to avoid an+ possi;le pole ics concerning the atter,< ;ut he opines that thepole ics leading to Valen!uela < ould ;e iniscule GsicH co pared to the <pole ics< that have no eruptedin regard to the current controvers+,< and that unless <put to a halt, and this a+ onl+ ;e achieved ;+ a rulingfro the Court, the integrit+ of the process and the credi;ilit+ of hoever is appointed to the position of Chief :ustice, a+ irrepara;l+ ;e i paired.< 01

&ccordingl+, e refra e the issues as su; itted ;+ each petitioner in the order of the chronological filing oftheir petitions.

G.R. No. 191005

a. Does the :8C have the po er and authorit+ to resolve the constitutional 7uestion of hether theincu ;ent 5resident can appoint a Chief :ustice during the election ;an periodL

;. Does the incu ;ent 5resident have the po er and authorit+ to appoint during the election ;an thesuccessor of Chief :ustice 5uno hen he vacates the position of Chief :ustice on his retire ent on4a+ $*, 0=$=L

G.R. No. 191035

Page | 67















a. Is the po er to appoint the Chief :ustice vested in the Supre e Court en ;ancL

G.R. No. 191067

a. Is the constitutional prohi;ition against appoint ent under Section $', &rticle VII of theConstitution applica;le onl+ to positions in the E6ecutive Depart entL

;. &ssu ing that the prohi;ition under Section $', &rticle VII of the Constitution also applies to

e ;ers of the :udiciar+, a+ such appoint ents ;e e6cepted ;ecause the+ are i pressed ithpu;lic interest or are de anded ;+ the e6igencies of pu;lic service, there;+ justif+ing theseappoint ents during the period of prohi;itionL

c. Does the :8C have the authorit+ to decide hether or not to include and su; it the na es ofno inees ho anifested interest to ;e no inated for the position of Chief :ustice on theunderstanding that his her no ination ill ;e su; itted to the ne6t 5resident in vie of theprohi;ition against presidential appoint ents fro 4arch $$, 0=$= until :une 1=, 0=$=L

A. !. No. 10 5 6 SC

a. Does Section $', &rticle VII of the Constitution appl+ to appoint ents to positions in the :udiciar+under Section (, &rticle VIII of the ConstitutionL

;. 4a+ 5resident Bloria 4acapagal-&rro+o ake appoint ents to the :udiciar+ after 4arch $=,0=$=, including that for the position of Chief :ustice after Chief :ustice 5uno retires on 4a+ $*,0=$=L

G.R. No. 1911 9

a. Does the :8C have the discretion to ithhold the su; ission of the short list to 5resident Bloria4acapagal-&rro+oL

G.R. No. 1913 5

a. Does the :8C have the authorit+ to su; it the list of no inees to the incu ;ent 5resident ithoutco itting a grave violation of the Constitution and jurisprudence prohi;iting the incu ;ent5resident fro aking idnight appoint ents t o onths i ediatel+ preceding the ne6tpresidential elections until the end of her ter L

;. Is an+ act perfor ed ;+ the :8C, including the vetting of the candidates for the position of Chief:ustice, constitutionall+ invalid in vie of the :8C9s illegal co position allo ing each e ;er frothe Senate and the ?ouse of Representatives to have one vote eachL

On e;ruar+ $ , 0=$=, the Court directed the :8C and the Office of the Solicitor Beneral #OSB% to co enton the consolidated petitions, e6cept that filed in B.R. No. $($120.

On e;ruar+ 0 , 0=$=, the :8C su; itted its co ent, reporting therein that the ne6t stage of the processfor the selection of the no inees for the position of Chief :ustice ould ;e the pu;lic intervie of thecandidates and the preparation of the short list of candidates, <including the intervie of the constitutionale6perts, as a+ ;e needed.< 02 It stated" 0'

@ike ise, the :8C has +et to take a position on hen to su; it the shortlist to the proper appointingauthorit+, in light of Section 2 #$%, &rticle VIII of the Constitution, hich provides that vacanc+ in the Supre eCourt shall ;e filled ithin ninet+ #(=% da+s fro the occurrence thereof, Section $', &rticle VII of theConstitution concerning the ;an on 5residential appoint ents <t o #0% onths i ediatel+ ;efore the ne6t

Page | 68







presidential elections and up to the end of his ter < and Section 0 $ #g%, &rticle II of the O ni;usElection Code of the 5hilippines.

$0. Since the ?onora;le Supre e Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, the :8C ill ;e guided ;+its decision in these consolidated 5etitions and &d inistrative 4atter.

On e;ruar+ 0 , 0=$=, the OSB also su; itted its co ent, essentiall+ stating that the incu ;ent5resident can appoint the successor of Chief :ustice 5uno upon his retire ent ;+ 4a+ $*, 0=$=.

3he OSB insists that" #a% a rit of prohi;ition cannot issue to prevent the :8C fro perfor ing its principalfunction under the Constitution to reco end appointees in the :udiciar+/ #;% the :8C9s function toreco end is a <continuing process,< hich does not ;egin ith each vacanc+ or end ith each no ination,;ecause the goal is <to su; it the list of no inees to 4alacaPang on the ver+ da+ the vacanc+ arises</ 0 the:8C as thus acting ithin its jurisdiction hen it co enced and set in otion the process of selecting theno inees to ;e su; itted to the 5resident for the position of Chief :ustice to ;e vacated ;+ Chief :ustice5uno /0* #c% petitioner Soriano9s theor+ that it is the Supre e Court, not the 5resident, ho has the po er toappoint the Chief :ustice, is incorrect, and proceeds fro his isinterpretation of the phrase < e ;ers ofthe Supre e Court< found in Section (, &rticle VIII of the Constitution as referring onl+ to the &ssociate:ustices, to the e6clusion of the Chief :ustice/ 0) #d% a rit of anda us can issue to co pel the :8C tosu; it the list of no inees to the 5resident, considering that its dut+ to prepare the list of at least three

no inees is un7ualified, and the su; ission of the list is a inisterial act that the :8C is andated toperfor under the Constitution/ as such, the :8C, the nature of hose principal function is e6ecutive, is notvested ith the po er to resolve ho has the authorit+ to appoint the ne6t Chief :ustice and, therefore, hasno discretion to ithhold the list fro the 5resident/ 0( and #e% a rit of anda us cannot issue to co pelthe :8C to include or e6clude particular candidates as no inees, considering that there is no i perativedut+ on its part to include in or e6clude fro the list particular individuals, ;ut, on the contrar+, the :8C9sdeter ination of ho it no inates to the 5resident is an e6ercise of a discretionar+ dut+ .1=

3he OSB contends that the incu ;ent 5resident a+ appoint the ne6t Chief :ustice, ;ecause theprohi;ition under Section $', &rticle VII of the Constitution does not appl+ to appoint ents in the Supre eCourt. It argues that an+ vacanc+ in the Supre e Court ust ;e filled ithin (= da+s fro its occurrence,pursuant to Section 2#$%, &rticle VIII of the Constitution/ 1$ that in their deli;erations on the andator+ periodfor the appoint ent of Supre e Court :ustices, the fra ers neither entioned nor referred to the ;anagainst idnight appoint ents, or its effects on such period, or vice versa/ 10 that had the fra ers intendedthe prohi;ition to appl+ to Supre e Court appoint ents, the+ could have easil+ e6pressl+ stated so in theConstitution, hich e6plains h+ the prohi;ition found in &rticle VII #E6ecutive Depart ent% as not rittenin &rticle VIII #:udicial Depart ent%/ and that the fra ers also incorporated in &rticle VIII a ple restrictions or li itations on the 5resident9s po er to appoint e ;ers of the Supre e Court to ensure its independencefro <political vicissitudes< and its <insulation fro political pressures,< 11 such as stringent 7ualifications forthe positions, the esta;lish ent of the :8C, the specified period ithin hich the 5resident shall appoint aSupre e Court :ustice.

3he OSB posits that although Valen!uela involved the appoint ent of R3C :udges, the situation no refers

to the appoint ent of the ne6t Chief :ustice to hich the prohi;ition does not appl+/ that, at an+ rate,Valen!uela even recogni!ed that there ight ;e <the i perative need for an appoint ent during the periodof the ;an,< like hen the e ;ership of the Supre e Court should ;e <so reduced that it ill have no7uoru , or should the voting on a particular i portant 7uestion re7uiring e6peditious resolution ;edivided</12 and that Valen!uela also recogni!ed that the filling of vacancies in the :udiciar+ is undou;tedl+ inthe pu;lic interest, ost especiall+ if there is an+ co pelling reason to justif+ the aking of theappoint ents during the period of the prohi;ition. 1'

@astl+, the OSB urges that there are no undenia;l+ co pelling reasons for the incu ;ent 5resident toappoint the ne6t Chief :ustice, to it" #a% a deluge of cases involving sensitive political issues is <7uitee6pected</ 1 #;% the Court acts as the 5residential Electoral 3ri;unal #5E3%, hich, sitting en ;anc, is the sole

Page | 69

































judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and 7ualifications of the 5resident and Vice 5residentand, as such, has <the po er to correct anifest errors on the state ent of votes #SOV% and certificates ofcanvass #COC%</1* #c% if histor+ has sho n that during ordinar+ ti es the Chief :ustice as appointedi ediatel+ upon the occurrence of the vacanc+, fro the ti e of the effectivit+ of the Constitution, there isno even ore reason to appoint the ne6t Chief :ustice i ediatel+ upon the retire ent of Chief :ustice5uno /1) and #d% should the ne6t Chief :ustice co e fro a ong the incu ;ent &ssociate :ustices of theSupre e Court, there;+ causing a vacanc+, it also ;eco es incu ;ent upon the :8C to start the selectionprocess for the filling up of the vacanc+ in accordance ith the constitutional andate. 1(

On 4arch (, 0=$=, the Court ad itted the follo ing co ents oppositions-in-intervention, to it"

#a% 3he opposition-in-intervention dated e;ruar+ 00, 0=$= of &tt+. 5eter Irving Corvera #Corvera%/ 2=

#;% 3he opposition-in-intervention dated e;ruar+ 00, 0=$= of &tt+. Christian Ro;ert S. @i #@i %/

#c% 3he opposition-in-intervention dated e;ruar+ 01, 0=$= of &tt+. &lfonso V. 3an, :r. #3an%/

#d% 3he co ent opposition-in-intervention dated 4arch $, 0=$= of the National >nion of 5eople9s@a +ers #N>5@%/

#e% 3he opposition-in-intervention dated e;ruar+ 0', 0=$= of &tt+. 4arlou 8. >;ano #>;ano%/

#f% 3he opposition-in-intervention dated e;ruar+ 0', 0=$= of Integrated 8ar of the 5hilippines-Davaodel Sur Chapter and its I ediate 5ast 5resident, &tt+. Israelito 5. 3orreon #I85- Davao del Sur%/

#g% 3he opposition-in-intervention dated e;ruar+ 0 , 0=$= of &tt+. 4itchell :ohn @. 8oiser #8oiser%/

#h%3he consolidated co ent opposition-in-intervention dated e;ruar+ 0 , 0=$= of 8& &NChair an Dr. Carolina 5. &raullo/ 8& &N Secretar+ Beneral Renato 4. Re+es, :r./ Confederation for >nit+, Recognition and &dvance ent of Bovern ent E plo+ees #CO>R&BE% Chair an erdinandBaite/ alipunan ng Da a+ang 4ahihirap # &D&4& % Secretar+ Beneral Bloria &rellano/ &l+ansa

ng Nagkakaisang a;ataan ng Sa a+anan 5ara sa aunlaran #&N& 8& &N% Chair an en@eonard Ra os/ 3a+o ang 5ag-asa Convenor &lvin 5eters/ @eague of ilipino Students #@ S%Chair an :a es 4ark 3err+ @acuanan Ridon/ National >nion of Students of the 5hilippines #N>S5%Chair an Einstein Recedes, College Editors Build of the 5hilippines #CEB5% Chair an Vijae

&l7uisola/ and Student Christian 4ove ent of the 5hilippines #SC45% Chair an 4a. Cristina &ngelaBuevarra #8& &N et al.%/

#i% 3he opposition-in-intervention dated 4arch 1, 0=$= of Aalden . 8ello and @oretta &nn 5. Rosales#8ello et al.%/ and

#j% 3he consolidated co ent opposition-in-intervention dated 4arch 2, 0=$= of the Ao en 3rial@a +ers Organi!ation of the 5hilippines #A3@O5%, represented ;+ &tt+. olanda uisu ;ing-:avellana/ &tt+. 8elle!a &lojado De aisip/ &tt+. 3eresita Bandionco-Oledan/ &tt+. 4a. Verena

asilag-Villanueva/ &tt+. 4aril+n Sta. Ro ana/ &tt+. @eonila de :esus/ and &tt+. Buinevere de @eon#A3@O5%.

Intervenors 3an, A3@O5, 8& &N et al ., Corvera, I85 Davao del Sur, and N>5@ take the position that DeCastro9s petition as ;ereft of an+ ;asis, ;ecause under Section $', &rticle VII, the outgoing 5resident isconstitutionall+ ;anned fro aking an+ appoint ents fro 4arch $=, 0=$= until :une 1=, 0=$=, includingthe appoint ent of the successor of Chief :ustice 5uno. ?ence, anda us does not lie to co pel the :8Cto su; it the list of no inees to the outgoing 5resident if the constitutional prohi;ition is alread+ in effect.3an adds that the prohi;ition against idnight appoint ents as applied ;+ the Court to the appoint ents tothe :udiciar+ ade ;+ then 5resident Ra os, ith the Court holding that the dut+ of the 5resident to fill the

Page | 70














vacancies ithin (= da+s fro occurrence of the vacancies #for the Supre e Court% or fro the su; issionof the list #for all other courts% as not an e6cuse to violate the constitutional prohi;ition.

Intervenors 3an, >;ano, 8oiser, Corvera, N>@5, 8& &N et al. , and 8ello et al. oppose the insistence thatValen!uela recogni!es the possi;ilit+ that the 5resident a+ appoint the ne6t Chief :ustice if e6igentcircu stances arrant the appoint ent, ;ecause that recognition is obiter dictum / and aver that thea;sence of a Chief :ustice or even an &ssociate :ustice does not cause epic da age or a;solute disruptionor paral+sis in the operations of the :udiciar+. 3he+ insist that even ithout the successor of Chief :ustice

5uno ;eing appointed ;+ the incu ;ent 5resident, the Court is allo ed to sit and adjudge en ;anc or indivisions of three, five or seven e ;ers at its discretion/ that a full e ;ership of the Court is notnecessar+/ that petitioner De Castro9s fears are unfounded and ;aseless, ;eing ;ased on a ere possi;ilit+,the occurrence of hich is entirel+ unsure/ that it is not in the national interest to have a Chief :ustice hoseappoint ent is unconstitutional and, therefore, void/ and that such a situation ill create a crisis in the

judicial s+ste and ill orsen an alread+ vulnera;le political situation.

ice is i perative for the sta;ilit+ of the judicial s+ste and the political situation in the countr+ hen theelection-related 7uestions reach the Court as false, ;ecause there is an e6isting la on filling the void;rought a;out ;+ a vacanc+ in the office of Chief :ustice/ that the la is Section $0 of the :udiciar+ &ct of$(2), hich has not ;een repealed ;+ 8atas 5a ;ansa 8lg. $0( or an+ other la / that a te porar+ or anacting Chief :ustice is not anathe a to judicial independence/ that the designation of an acting Chief :ustice

is not onl+ provided for ;+ la , ;ut is also dictated ;+ practical necessit+/ that the practice as intended to;e enshrined in the $()* Constitution, ;ut the Co issioners decided not to rite it in the Constitution onaccount of the settled practice/ that the practice as follo ed under the $()* Constitution, hen, in $((0, atthe end of the ter of Chief :ustice 4arcelo 8. ernan, &ssociate :ustice &ndres Narvasa assu ed theposition as &cting Chief :ustice prior to his official appoint ent as Chief :ustice/ that said filling up of avacanc+ in the office of the Chief :ustice as ackno ledged and even used ;+ analog+ in the case of thevacanc+ of the Chair an of the Co ission on Elections, per *rillantes v. Iorac , $(0 SCR& 1')/ and thatthe histor+ of the Supre e Court has sho n that this rule of succession has ;een repeatedl+ o;served andhas ;eco e a part of its tradition.

Intervenors >;ano, 8oiser, N>5@, Corvera, and @i aintain that the O ni;us Election Code penali!es asan election offense the act of an+ govern ent official ho appoints, pro otes, or gives an+ increase insalar+ or re uneration or privilege to an+ govern ent official or e plo+ee during the period of 2' da+s;efore a regular election/ that the provision covers all appointing heads, officials, and officers of agovern ent office, agenc+ or instru entalit+, including the 5resident/ that for the incu ;ent 5resident toappoint the ne6t Chief :ustice upon the retire ent of Chief :ustice 5uno, or during the period of the ;anunder the O ni;us Election Code, constitutes an election offense/ that even an appoint ent of the ne6tChief :ustice prior to the election ;an is funda entall+ invalid and ithout effect ;ecause there can ;e noappoint ent until a vacanc+ occurs/ and that the vacanc+ for the position can occur onl+ ;+ 4a+ $*, 0=$=.

Intervenor 8oiser adds that De Castro9s pra+er to co pel the su; ission of no inees ;+ the :8C to theincu ;ent 5resident is off-tangent ;ecause the position of Chief :ustice is still not vacant/ that to speak of alist, uch ore a su; ission of such list, ;efore a vacanc+ occurs is glaringl+ pre ature/ that the proposed

advance appoint ent ;+ the incu ;ent 5resident of the ne6t Chief :ustice ill ;e unconstitutional/ and thatno list of no inees can ;e su; itted ;+ the :8C if there is no vacanc+.

&ll the intervenors-oppositors su; it that Section $', &rticle VII akes no distinction ;et een the kinds ofappoint ents ade ;+ the 5resident/ and that the Court, in Valen!uela, ruled that the appoint ents ;+ the5resident of the t o judges during the prohi;ition period ere void.

Intervenor A3@O5 posits that Section $', &rticle VII of the $()* Constitution does not appl+ onl+ to theappoint ents in the E6ecutive Depart ent, ;ut also to judicial appoint ents, contrar+ to the su; ission of5?I@CONS&/ that Section $' does not distinguish/ and that Valen!uela alread+ interpreted the prohi;ition asapplica;le to judicial appoint ents.

Page | 71



Intervenor A3@O5 further posits that petitioner Soriano9s contention that the po er to appoint the Chief:ustice is vested, not in the 5resident, ;ut in the Supre e Court, is utterl+ ;aseless, ;ecause the Chief:ustice is also a 4e ;er of the Supre e Court as conte plated under Section (, &rticle VIII/ and that, atan+ rate, the ter < e ;ers< as interpreted in Vargas v. Rillaro!a #B.R. No. @-$ $0, e;ruar+ 0 , $(2)% torefer to the Chief :ustice and the &ssociate :ustices of the Supre e Court/ that 5?I@CONS&9s pra+er thatthe Court pass a resolution declaring that persons ho anifest their interest as no inees, ;ut ithconditions, shall not ;e considered no inees ;+ the :8C is dia etricall+ opposed to the argu ents in the;od+ of its petition/ that such glaring inconsistenc+ ;et een the allegations in the ;od+ and the relief pra+edfor highlights the lack of erit of 5?I@CONS&9s petition/ that the role of the :8C cannot ;e separated frothe constitutional prohi;ition on the 5resident/ and that the Court ust direct the :8C to follo the rule ofla , that is, to su; it the list of no inees onl+ to the ne6t dul+ elected 5resident after the period of theconstitutional ;an against idnight appoint ents has e6pired.

Oppositor I85 Davao del Sur opines that the :8C - ;ecause it is neither a judicial nor a 7uasi-judicial ;od+ -has no dut+ under the Constitution to resolve the 7uestion of hether the incu ;ent 5resident can appoint aChief :ustice during the period of prohi;ition/ that even if the :8C has alread+ co e up ith a short list, itstill has to ;o to the strict li itations under Section $', &rticle VII/ that should the :8C defer su; ission ofthe list, it is not arrogating unto itself a judicial function, ;ut si pl+ respecting the clear andate of theConstitution/ and that the application of the general rule in Section $', &rticle VII to the :udiciar+ does notviolate the principle of separation of po ers, ;ecause said provision is an e6ception.

Oppositors N>5@, Corvera, @i and 8& &N et al. state that the :8C9s act of no inating appointees to theSupre e Court is purel+ inisterial and does not involve the e6ercise of judg ent/ that there can ;e nodefault on the part of the :8C in su; itting the list of no inees to the 5resident, considering that the call forapplications onl+ ;egins fro the occurrence of the vacanc+ in the Supre e Court/ and that theco ence ent of the process of screening of applicants to fill the vacanc+ in the office of the Chief :usticeonl+ ;egins fro the retire ent on 4a+ $*, 0=$=, for, prior to this date, there is no definite legal ;asis for an+part+ to clai that the su; ission or non-su; ission of the list of no inees to the 5resident ;+ the :8C is a

atter of right under la .

3he ain 7uestion presented in all the filings herein - ;ecause it involves t o see ingl+ conflictingprovisions of the Constitution - i perativel+ de ands the attention and resolution of this Court, the onl+authorit+ that can resolve the 7uestion definitivel+ and finall+. 3he i perative de and rests on the ever-present need, first, to safeguard the independence, reputation, and integrit+ of the entire :udiciar+,particularl+ this Court, an institution that has ;een unnecessaril+ dragged into the harsh pole ics ;rought on;+ the controvers+/ second, to settle once and for all the dou;t a;out an outgoing 5resident9s po er toappoint to the :udiciar+ ithin the long period starting t o onths ;efore the presidential elections until theend of the presidential ter / and third, to set a definite guideline for the :8C to follo in the discharge of itspri ar+ office of screening and no inating 7ualified persons for appoint ent to the :udiciar+.

3hus, e resolve.

Ruling of the Court

Locus Standi o& %t*t*o+%(s

3he preli inar+ issue to ;e settled is hether or not the petitioners have locus standi .

8lack defines locus standi as <a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given 7uestion.< 2$ In pu;lic orconstitutional litigations, the Court is often ;urdened ith the deter ination of the locus standi of thepetitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention of the Court to correctan+ official action or polic+ in order to avoid o;structing the efficient functioning of pu;lic officials and officesinvolved in pu;lic service. It is re7uired, therefore, that the petitioner ust have a personal stake in theoutco e of the controvers+, for, as indicated in &gan, :r. v. 5hilippine International &ir 3er inals Co., Inc." 20

Page | 72







3he 7uestion on legal standing is hether such parties have <alleged such a personal stake in the outco eof the controvers+ as to assure that concrete adverseness hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon

hich the court so largel+ depends for illu ination of difficult constitutional 7uestions.< 21 &ccordingl+, it has;een held that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionalit+ of a statute ust ;e direct and personal.?e ust ;e a;le to sho , not onl+ that the la or an+ govern ent act is invalid, ;ut also that he sustained or is in i inent danger of sustaining so e direct injur+ as a result of its enforce ent, and not erel+ that hesuffers there;+ in so e indefinite a+. It ust appear that the person co plaining has ;een or is a;out to;e denied so e right or privilege to hich he is la full+ entitled or that he is a;out to ;e su;jected to so e;urdens or penalties ;+ reason of the statute or act co plained of. 22

It is true that as earl+ as in $(1*, in eople v. 0era ,2' the Court adopted the direct injur+ test for deter ininghether a petitioner in a pu;lic action had locus standi. 3here, the Court held that the person ho ould

assail the validit+ of a statute ust have <a personal and su;stantial interest in the case such that he hassustained, or ill sustain direct injur+ as a result.< 0era as follo ed in Custodio v. resident of the$enate ,2 Manila Bace Horse -rainers !ssociation v. 3e la 5uente ,2* !nti4Chinese Lea(ue of the hilippinesv. 5eliA ,2) and ascual v. $ecretary of ublic For)s. 2(

et, the Court has also held that the re7uire ent of locus standi , ;eing a ere procedural technicalit+, can;e aived ;+ the Court in the e6ercise of its discretion. or instance, in $(2(, in !raneta v. 3in(lasan ,'= theCourt li;erali!ed the approach hen the cases had <transcendental i portance.< So e nota;le

controversies hose petitioners did not pass the direct injury test ere allo ed to ;e treated in the sa ea+ as in !raneta v. 3in(lasan .'$

In the $(*' decision in !quino v. Commission on lections ,'0 this Court decided to resolve the issues raised;+ the petition due to their <far-reaching i plications,< even if the petitioner had no personalit+ to file the suit.3he li;eral approach of !quino v. Commission on lections has ;een adopted in several nota;le cases,per itting ordinar+ citi!ens, legislators, and civic

organi!ations to ;ring their suits involving the constitutionalit+ or validit+ of la s, regulations, and rulings. '1

?o ever, the assertion of a pu;lic right as a predicate for challenging a supposedl+ illegal or unconstitutionale6ecutive or legislative action rests on the theor+ that the petitioner represents the pu;lic in general.

&lthough such petitioner a+ not ;e as adversel+ affected ;+ the action co plained against as are others, itis enough that he sufficientl+ de onstrates in his petition that he is entitled to protection or relief fro theCourt in the vindication of a pu;lic right.

uite often, as here, the petitioner in a pu;lic action sues as a citi!en or ta6pa+er to gain locus standi. 3hatis not surprising, for even if the issue a+ appear to concern onl+ the pu;lic in general, such capacitiesnonetheless e7uip the petitioner ith ade7uate interest to sue. In 3avid v. Macapa(al4!rroyo ,'2 the Courtaptl+ e6plains h+"

Case la in ost jurisdictions no allo s ;oth <citi!en< and <ta6pa+er< standing in pu;lic actions. 3hedistinction as first laid do n in *eauchamp v. $il) ,'' here it as held that the plaintiff in a ta6pa+er9s suit is

in a different categor+ fro the plaintiff in a citi!en9s suit. I+ t'% &o( %(, t'% = *+t*&& *s &&%-t%$ >2% %+$*tu(% o& u>=*- &u+$s, @'*=% *+ t'% = tt%(, '% *s >ut t'% %(% *+st(u %+t o& t'% u>=*--o+-%(+. &s held ;+ the Ne ork Supre e Court in eople eA rel Case v. Collins "' <I+ tt%( o& %(%

u>=*- (*g't, 'o@%<%(Jt'% %o =% (% t'% (% = (t*%sJIt *s t =% st t'% (*g't, *& +ot t'% $ut2, o&-*t* %+ to *+t%(&%(% +$ s%% t' t u>=*- o&&%+-% >% (o %(=2 u(su%$ +$ u+*s'%$, +$ tg(*%< +-% >% (% %$*%$.< Aith respect to ta6pa+er9s suits, -err v. Jordan '* held that < t'% (*g't o& -*t* %+

+$ t 2%( to *+t *+ + -t*o+ *+ -ou(ts to (%st( *+ t'% u+= @&u= us% o& u>=*- &u+$s to *+?u(2 - ++ot >% $%+*%$.<')

5etitioners De Castro #B.R. No. $($==0%, Soriano #B.R. No. $($=10% and 5eralta #B.R. No. $($$2(% allassert their right as citi!ens filing their petitions on ;ehalf of the pu;lic ho are directl+ affected ;+ the issue

Page | 73












































of the appoint ent of the ne6t Chief :ustice. De Castro and Soriano further clai standing as ta6pa+ers,ith Soriano averring that he is affected ;+ the continuing proceedings in the :8C, hich involve

<unnecessar+, if not, illegal dis;urse ent of pu;lic funds.< '(

5?I@CONS& alleges itself to ;e a non-stock, non-profit organi!ation e6isting under the la for the purposeof defending, protecting, and preserving the Constitution and pro oting its gro th and flo ering. It alsoalleges that the Court has recogni!ed its legal standing to file cases on constitutional issues in severalcases . =

In &.4. No. $=-0-'-SC, 4endo!a states that he is a citi!en of the 5hilippines, a e ;er of the 5hilippine 8ar engaged in the active practice of la , and a for er Solicitor Beneral, for er 4inister of :ustice, for er4e ;er of the Interi 8atasang 5a ;ansa and the Regular 8atasang 5a ;ansa, and for er e ;er ofthe acult+ of the College of @a of the >niversit+ of the 5hilippines.

3he petitioners in B.R. No. $($120 are the Bovernors of the Integrated 8ar of the 5hilippines #I85% forSouthern @u!on and Eastern Visa+as. 3he+ allege that the+ have the legal standing to enjoin the su; issionof the list of no inees ;+ the :8C to the 5resident, for <GaHn adjudication of the proper interpretation andapplication of the constitutional ;an on idnight appoint ents ith regard to respondent :8C9s function insu; itting the list of no inees is ell ithin the concern of petitioners, ho are dut+ ;ound to ensure thato;edience and respect for the Constitution is upheld, ost especiall+ ;+ govern ent offices, such as

respondent :8C, ho are specificall+ tasked to perfor crucial functions in the hole sche e of ourde ocratic institution.< 3he+ further allege that, reposed in the as e ;ers of the 8ar, is a clear legalinterest in the process of selecting the e ;ers of the Supre e Court, and in the selection of the Chief:ustice, considering that the person appointed ;eco es a e ;er of the ;od+ that has constitutionalsupervision and authorit+ over the and other e ;ers of the legal profession. $

3he Court rules that the petitioners have each de onstrated ade7uate interest in the outco e of thecontrovers+ as to vest the ith the re7uisite locus standi. 3he issues ;efore us are of transcendentali portance to the people as a hole, and to the petitioners in particular. Indeed, the issues affect ever+one#including the petitioners%, regardless of one9s personal interest in life, ;ecause the+ concern that greatdou;t a;out the authorit+ of the incu ;ent 5resident to appoint not onl+ the successor of the retiringincu ;ent Chief :ustice, ;ut also others ho a+ serve in the :udiciar+, hich alread+ suffers fro a far toogreat nu ;er of vacancies in the ranks of trial judges throughout the countr+.

In an+ event, the Court retains the ;road discretion to aive the re7uire ent of legal standing in favor of an+petitioner hen the atter involved has transcendental i portance, or other ise re7uires a li;erali!ation ofthe re7uire ent . 0

et, if an+ dou;t still lingers a;out the locus standi of an+ petitioner, e dispel the dou;t no in order tore ove an+ o;stacle or o;struction to the resolution of the essential issue s7uarel+ presented herein. Aeare not to shirk fro discharging our sole n dut+ ;+ reason alone of an o;stacle ore technical thanother ise. In &gan, :r. v. 5hilippine International &ir 3er inals Co., Inc., 1 e pointed out" <Standing is apeculiar concept in constitutional la ;ecause in so e cases, suits are not ;rought ;+ parties ho have

;een personall+ injured ;+ the operation of a la or an+ other govern ent act ;ut ;+ concerned citi!ens,ta6pa+ers or voters ho actuall+ sue in the pu;lic interest.< 8ut even if, strictl+ speaking, the petitioners <arenot covered ;+ the definition, it is still ithin the ide discretion of the Court to aive the re7uire ent and sore ove the i pedi ent to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional 7uestions raised.< 2

:usticia;ilit+

Intervenor N>5@ aintains that there is no actual case or controvers+ that is appropriate or ripe foradjudication, considering that although the selection process co enced ;+ the :8C is going on, there is+et no final list of no inees/ hence, there is no i inent controvers+ as to hether such list ust ;esu; itted to the incu ;ent 5resident, or reserved for su; ission to the inco ing 5resident.

Page | 74


















Intervenor 3an raises the lack of an+ actual justicia;le controvers+ that is ripe for judicial deter ination,pointing out that petitioner De Castro has not even sho n that the :8C has alread+ co pleted its selectionprocess and is no read+ to su; it the list to the incu ;ent 5resident/ and that petitioner De Castro is

erel+ presenting a h+pothetical scenario that is clearl+ not sufficient for the Court to e6ercise its po er of judicial revie .

Intervenors Corvera and @i separatel+ opine that De Castro9s petition rests on an over;road and vagueallegation of political tension, hich is insufficient ;asis for the Court to e6ercise its po er of judicial revie .

Intervenor 8& &N et al. contend that the petitioners are seeking a ere advisor+ opinion on hat the :8Cand the 5resident should do, and are not invoking an+ issues that are justicia;le in nature.

Intervenors 8ello et al. su; it that there e6ist no conflict of legal rights and no assertion of opposite legalclai s in an+ of the petitions/ that 5?I@CONS& does not allege an+ action taken ;+ the :8C, ;ut si pl+avers that the conditional anifestations of t o 4e ;ers of the Court, accented ;+ the divided opinions andinterpretations of legal e6perts, or associations of la +ers and la students on the issues pu;lished in thedail+ ne spapers are < atters of para ount and transcendental i portance to the ;ench, ;ar and generalpu;lic</ that 5?I@CONS& fails not onl+ to cite an+ legal dut+ or allege an+ failure to perfor the dut+, ;utalso to indicate hat specific action should ;e done ;+ the :8C/ that 4endo!a does not even atte pt toportra+ the atter as a controvers+ or conflict of rights, ;ut, instead, pra+s that the Court should <rule for the

guidance of< the :8C/ that the fact that the Court supervises the :8C does not auto aticall+ i pl+ that theCourt can rule on the issues presented in the 4endo!a petition, ;ecause supervision involves oversight,

hich eans that the su;ordinate officer or ;od+ ust first act, and if such action is not in accordance ithprescri;ed rules, then, and onl+ then, a+ the person e6ercising oversight order the action to ;e redone toconfor to the prescri;ed rules/ that the 4endo!a petition does not allege that the :8C has perfor ed aspecific act suscepti;le to correction for ;eing illegal or unconstitutional/ and that the 4endo!a petition asksthe Court to issue an advisor+ ruling, not to e6ercise its po er of supervision to correct a rong act ;+ the:8C, ;ut to declare the state of the la in the a;sence of an actual case or controvers+.

Ae hold that the petitions set forth an actual case or controvers+ that is ripe for judicial deter ination. 3herealit+ is that the :8C alread+ co enced the proceedings for the selection of the no inees to ;e includedin a short list to ;e su; itted to the 5resident for consideration of hich of the ill succeed Chief :ustice5uno as the ne6t Chief :ustice. &lthough the position is not +et vacant, the fact that the :8C ;egan theprocess of no ination pursuant to its rules and practices, although it has +et to decide hether to su; it thelist of no inees to the incu ;ent outgoing 5resident or to the ne6t 5resident, akes the situation ripe for

judicial deter ination, ;ecause the ne6t steps are the pu;lic intervie of the candidates, the preparation ofthe short list of candidates, and the <intervie of constitutional e6perts, as a+ ;e needed.<

& part of the 7uestion to ;e revie ed ;+ the Court is hether the :8C properl+ initiated the process, there;eing an insistence fro so e of the oppositors-intervenors that the :8C could onl+ do so once the vacanc+has occurred #that is, after 4a+ $*, 0=$=%. &nother part is, of course, hether the :8C a+ resu e itsprocess until the short list is prepared, in vie of the provision of Section 2#$%, &rticle VIII, hichun7ualifiedl+ re7uires the 5resident to appoint one fro the short list to fill the vacanc+ in the Supre e Court

#;e it the Chief :ustice or an &ssociate :ustice% ithin (= da+s fro the occurrence of the vacanc+.

3he ripeness of the controvers+ for judicial deter ination a+ not ;e dou;ted. 3he challenges to theauthorit+ of the :8C to open the process of no ination and to continue the process until the su; ission ofthe list of no inees/ the insistence of so e of the petitioners to co pel the :8C through anda us tosu; it the short list to the incu ;ent 5resident/ the counter-insistence of the intervenors to prohi;it the :8Cfro su; itting the short list to the incu ;ent 5resident on the ground that said list should ;e su; ittedinstead to the ne6t 5resident/ the strong position that the incu ;ent 5resident is alread+ prohi;ited underSection $', &rticle VII fro aking an+ appoint ents, including those to the :udiciar+, starting on 4a+ $=,0=$= until :une 1=, 0=$=/ and the contrar+ position that the incu ;ent 5resident is not so prohi;ited are onl+so e of the real issues for deter ination. &ll such issues esta;lish the ripeness of the controvers+,

Page | 75



considering that for so e the short list ust ;e su; itted ;efore the vacanc+ actuall+ occurs ;+ 4a+ $*,0=$=. 3he outco e ill not ;e an a;straction, or a erel+ h+pothetical e6ercise. 3he resolution of thecontrovers+ ill surel+ settle - ith finalit+ - the nagging 7uestions that are preventing the :8C fro ovingon ith the process that it alread+ ;egan, or that are reasons persuading the :8C to desist fro the rest ofthe process.

Ae need not a ait the occurrence of the vacanc+ ;+ 4a+ $*, 0=$= in order for the principal issue to ripe for judicial deter ination ;+ the Court. It is enough that one alleges conduct argua;l+ affected ith a

constitutional interest, ;ut see ingl+ proscri;ed ;+ the Constitution. & reasona;le certaint+ of theoccurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a ;asis for ;ringing achallenge, provided the Court has sufficient facts ;efore it to ena;le it to intelligentl+ adjudicate theissues. ' ?erein, the facts are not in dou;t, for onl+ legal issues re ain.

Su;stantive 4erits

I

5rohi;ition under Section $', &rticle VII does not appl+ to appoint ents to fill a vacanc+ in the Supre eCourt or to other appoint ents to the :udiciar+

3 o constitutional provisions are see ingl+ in conflict.

3he first, Section $', &rticle VII #E6ecutive Depart ent%, provides"

Section $'. 3 o onths i ediatel+ ;efore the ne6t presidential elections and up to the end of his ter , a5resident or &cting 5resident shall not ake appoint ents , e6cept te porar+ appoint ents to e6ecutivepositions hen continued vacancies therein ill prejudice pu;lic service or endanger pu;lic safet+.

3he other, Section 2 #$%, &rticle VIII #:udicial Depart ent%, states"

Section 2. #$%. 3he Supre e Court shall ;e co posed of a Chief :ustice and fourteen &ssociate :ustices. It

a+ sit en ;anc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven 4e ;ers. &n+ vacanc+ shall ;e filledithin ninet+ da+s fro the occurrence thereof.

In the consolidated petitions, the petitioners, ith the e6ception of Soriano, 3olentino and Inting, su; it thatthe incu ;ent 5resident can appoint the successor of Chief :ustice 5uno upon his retire ent on 4a+ $*,0=$=, on the ground that the prohi;ition against presidential appoint ents under Section $', &rticle VII doesnot e6tend to appoint ents in the :udiciar+.

3he Court agrees ith the su; ission.

irst. 3he records of the deli;erations of the Constitutional Co ission reveal that the fra ers devoted ti eto eticulousl+ drafting, st+ling, and arranging the Constitution. Such eticulousness indicates that theorgani!ation and arrange ent of the provisions of the Constitution ere not ar;itraril+ or hi sicall+ done;+ the fra ers, ;ut purposel+ ade to reflect their intention and anifest their vision of hat the Constitutionshould contain.

3he Constitution consists of $) &rticles, three of hich e ;od+ the allocation of the a eso e po ers ofgovern ent a ong the three great depart ents, the @egislative #&rticle VI%, the E6ecutive #&rticle VII%, andthe :udicial Depart ents #&rticle VIII%. 3he arrange ent as a true recognition of the principle of separationof po ers that underlies the political structure, as Constitutional Co issioner &dolfo S. &!cuna #later a

orth+ e ;er of the Court% e6plained in his sponsorship speech"

Page | 76





Ae have in the political part of this Constitution opted for the separation of po ers in govern ent ;ecausee ;elieve that the onl+ a+ to protect freedo and li;ert+ is to separate and divide the a eso e po ers of

govern ent. ?ence, e return to the separation of po ers doctrine and the legislative, e6ecutive and judicialdepart ents.

&s can ;e seen, &rticle VII is devoted to the E6ecutive Depart ent, and, a ong others, it lists the po ersvested ;+ the Constitution in the 5resident. 3he presidential po er of appoint ent is dealt ith in Sections$2, $' and $ of the &rticle.

&rticle VIII is dedicated to the :udicial Depart ent and defines the duties and 7ualifications of 4e ;ers ofthe Supre e Court, a ong others. Section 2#$% and Section ( of this &rticle are the provisions specificall+providing for the appoint ent of Supre e Court :ustices. In particular, Section ( states that the appoint entof Supre e Court :ustices can onl+ ;e ade ;+ the 5resident upon the su; ission of a list of at least threeno inees ;+ the :8C/ Section 2#$% of the &rticle andates the 5resident to fill the vacanc+ ithin (= da+sfro the occurrence of the vacanc+.

?ad the fra ers intended to e6tend the prohi;ition contained in Section $', &rticle VII to the appoint ent of4e ;ers of the Supre e Court, the+ could have e6plicitl+ done so. 3he+ could not have ignored the

eticulous ordering of the provisions. 3he+ ould have easil+ and surel+ ritten the prohi;ition adee6plicit in Section $', &rticle VII as ;eing e7uall+ applica;le to the appoint ent of 4e ;ers of the Supre e

Court in &rticle VIII itself, ost likel+ in Section 2 #$%, &rticle VIII. 3hat such specification as not done onl+reveals that the prohi;ition against the 5resident or &cting 5resident aking appoint ents ithin t o

onths ;efore the ne6t presidential elections and up to the end of the 5resident9s or &cting 5resident9s terdoes not refer to the 4e ;ers of the Supre e Court.

&lthough Valen!uela * ca e to hold that the prohi;ition covered even judicial appoint ents, it cannot ;edisputed that the Valen!uela dictu did not fir l+ rest on the deli;erations of the Constitutional Co ission.3here;+, the confir ation ade to the :8C ;+ then Senior &ssociate :ustice loren! D. Regalado of thisCourt, a for er e ;er of the Constitutional Co ission, a;out the prohi;ition not ;eing intended to appl+to the appoint ents to the :udiciar+, hich confir ation Valen!uela even e6pressl+ entioned, shouldprevail.

Relevantl+, Valen!uela adverted to the intent of the fra ers in the genesis of Section 2 #$%, &rticle VIII, vi!"

V. ntent of the Constitutional Commission

3he journal of the Co ission hich dre up the present Constitution discloses that the original proposalas to have an eleven- e ;er Supre e Court. Co issioner Eulogio @eru anted to increase the

nu ;er of :ustices to fifteen. ?e also ished to ensure that that nu ;er ould not ;e reduced for an+apprecia;le length of ti e #even onl+ te poraril+%, and to this end proposed that an+ vacanc+ < ust ;e filled

ithin t o onths fro the date that the vacanc+ occurs.< ?is proposal to have a $'- e ;er Court as notinitiall+ adopted. 5ersisting ho ever in his desire to ake certain that the si!e of the Court ould not ;edecreased for an+ su;stantial period as a result of vacancies, @eru proposed the insertion in the provision

#anent the Court9s e ;ership% of the sa e andate that <IN C&SE O &N V&C&NC , 3?E S&4ES?&@@ 8E I@@ED AI3?IN 3AO 4ON3?S RO4 OCC>RRENCE 3?EREO .< ?e later agreed tosuggestions to ake the period three, instead of t o, onths. &s thus a ended, the proposal asapproved. &s it turned out, ho ever, the Co ission ulti atel+ agreed on a fifteen- e ;er Court. 3hus it

as that the section fi6ing the co position of the Supre e Court ca e to include a co and to fill up an+vacanc+ therein ithin (= da+s fro its occurrence.

In this connection, it a+ ;e pointed out that that instruction that an+ <vacanc+ shall be filled ithin ninet+da+s< #in the last sentence of Section 2 #$% of &rticle VIII% contrasts ith the prohi;ition in Section $', &rticleVII, hich is couched in stron(er ne(ative lan(ua(e - that <a 5resident or &cting 5resident shall not akeappoint ents <

Page | 77








3he co ission later approved a proposal of Co issioner ?ilario B. Davide, :r. #no a 4e ;er of thisCourt% to add to hat is no Section ( of &rticle VIII, the follo ing paragraph" <AI3? RES5EC3 3O @OAERCO>R3S, 3?E 5RESIDEN3 S?&@@ ISS>E 3?E &55OIN34EN3 AI3?IN NINE3 D& S RO4 3?ES>84ISSION O 3?E @IS3< #of no inees ;+ the :udicial and 8ar Council to the 5resident%. Davide statedthat his purpose as to provide a <unifor rule< for lo er courts. &ccording to hi , the (=-da+ period should;e counted fro su; ission of the list of no inees to the 5resident in vie of the possi;ilit+ that the5resident ight reject the list su; itted to hi and the :8C thus need ore ti e to su; it a ne one.

On the other hand, Section $', &rticle VII - hich in effect deprives the 5resident of his appointing po er<t o onths i ediatel+ ;efore the ne6t presidential elections up to the end of his ter < - as approvedithout discussion. )

?o ever, the reference to the records of the Constitutional Co ission did not advance or support theresult in Valen!uela. ar to the contrar+, the records disclosed the e6press intent of the fra ers to enshrinein the Constitution, upon the initiative of Co issioner Eulogio @eru , <a co and Gto the 5residentH to fillup an+ vacanc+ therein ithin (= da+s fro its occurrence,< hich even Valen!uela conceded. ( 3hee6changes during deli;erations of the Constitutional Co ission on Octo;er ), $() further sho that thefilling of a vacanc+ in the Supre e Court ithin the (=-da+ period as a true andate for the 5resident, vi!"

4R. DE C&S3RO. I understand that our justices no in the Supre e Court, together ith the Chief :ustice,

are onl+ $$.

4R. CONCE5CION. es.

4R. DE C&S3RO. &nd the second sentence of this su;section reads" <&n+ vacanc+ shall ;e filled ithinninet+ da+s fro the occurrence thereof.<

4R. CONCE5CION. 3hat is right.

4R. DE C&S3RO. Is this no a andate to the e6ecutive to fill the vacanc+L

4R. CONCE5CION. 3hat is right. 3hat is ;orne out of the fact that in the past 1= +ears, seldo has theCourt had a co plete co ple ent. *=

4oreover, the usage in Section 2#$%, &rticle VIII of the ord shall - an i perative, operating to i pose a dut+that a+ ;e enforced *$ - should not ;e disregarded. 3here;+, Sections 2#$% i poses on the 5resident thei perative dut+ to ake an appoint ent of a 4e ;er of the Supre e Court ithin (= da+s fro theoccurrence of the vacanc+. 3he failure ;+ the 5resident to do so ill ;e a clear diso;edience to theConstitution.

3he (=-da+ li itation fi6ed in Section 2#$%, &rticle VIII for the 5resident to fill the vacanc+ in the Supre eCourt as undou;tedl+ a special provision to esta;lish a definite andate for the 5resident as theappointing po er, and cannot ;e defeated ;+ ere judicial interpretation in Valen!uela to the effect thatSection $', &rticle VII prevailed ;ecause it as <couched in stronger negative language.< Such interpretationeven turned out to ;e conjectural, in light of the records of the Constitutional Co ission9s deli;erations onSection 2 #$%, &rticle VIII.

?o Valen!uela justified its pronounce ent and result is hardl+ arranted. &ccording to an authorit+ onstatutor+ construction" *0

666 the court should seek to avoid an+ conflict in the provisions of the statute ;+ endeavoring to har oni!eand reconcile ever+ part so that each shall ;e effective. It is not eas+ to draft a statute, or an+ other ritingfor that atter, hich a+ not in so e anner contain conflicting provisions. 8ut hat appears to the reader to ;e a conflict a+ not have see ed so to the drafter. >ndou;tedl+, each provision as inserted for a

Page | 78













definite reason. Often ;+ considering the enact ent in its entiret+, hat appears to ;e on its face a conflicta+ ;e cleared up and the provisions reconciled.

Conse7uentl+, that construction hich ill leave ever+ ord operative ill ;e favored over one hich leavesso e ord or provision eaningless ;ecause of inconsistenc+. 8ut a ord should not ;e given effect, if todo so gives the statute a eaning contrar+ to the intent of the legislature. On the other hand, if full effectcannot ;e given to the ords of a statute, the+ ust ;e ade effective as far as possi;le. Nor should theprovisions of a statute hich are inconsistent ;e har oni!ed at a sacrifice of the legislative intention. It a+

;e that t o provisions are irreconcila;le/ if so, the one hich e6presses the intent of the la - akers shouldcontrol. &nd the ar;itrar+ rule has ;een fre7uentl+ announced that here there is an irreconcila;le conflict;et een the different provisions of a statute, the provision last in order of position ill prevail, since it is thelatest e6pression of the legislative ill. O;viousl+, the rule is su;ject to deserved criticis . It is seldoapplied, and pro;a;l+ then onl+ here an irreconcila;le conflict e6ists ;et een different sections of thesa e act, and after all other eans of ascertaining the eaning of the legislature have ;een e6hausted.Ahere the conflict is ;et een t o statutes, ore a+ ;e said in favor of the rule9s application, largel+;ecause of the principle of i plied repeal.

In this connection, 5?I@CONS&9s urging of a revisit and a revie of Valen!uela is ti el+ and appropriate.Valen!uela ar;itraril+ ignored the e6press intent of the Constitutional Co ission to have Section 2 #$%,

&rticle VIII stand independentl+ of an+ other provision, least of all one found in &rticle VII. It further ignored

that the t o provisions had no irreconcila;le conflict, regardless of Section $', &rticle VII ;eing couched inthe negative. &s judges, e are not to undul+ interpret, and should not accept an interpretation that defeatsthe intent of the fra ers. *1

Conse7uentl+, prohi;iting the incu ;ent 5resident fro appointing a Chief :ustice on the pre ise thatSection $', &rticle VII e6tends to appoint ents in the :udiciar+ cannot ;e sustained. & isinterpretation likeValen!uela should not ;e allo ed to last after its false pre ises have ;een e6posed. *2 It ill not do to erel+distinguish Valen!uela fro these cases, for the result to ;e reached herein is entirel+ inco pati;le ith

hat Valen!uela decreed. Conse7uentl+, Valen!uela no deserves to ;e 7uickl+ sent to the dust;in of theun orth+ and forgetta;le.

Ae reverse Valen!uela.

Second. Section $', &rticle VII does not appl+ as ell to all other appoint ents in the :udiciar+.

3here is no 7uestion that one of the reasons underl+ing the adoption of Section $' as part of &rticle VII asto eli inate idnight appoint ents fro ;eing ade ;+ an outgoing Chief E6ecutive in the old of theappoint ents dealt ith in the leading case of &+tona v. Castillo. *' In fact, in Valen!uela, the Court soo;served, stating that"

666 it appears that Section $', &rticle VII is directed against t o t+pes of appoint ents" #$% those ade for;u+ing votes and #0% those ade for partisan considerations. 3he first refers to those appoint ents ade

ithin the t o onths preceding a 5residential election and are si ilar to those hich are declared election

offenses in the O ni;us Election Code, viz ."

666

3he second t+pe of appoint ents prohi;ited ;+ Section $', &rticle VII consists of the so-called < idnight<appoint ents. In !ytona v. Castillo , it as held that after the procla ation of Diosdado 4acapagal as dul+elected 5resident, 5resident Carlos 5. Barcia, ho as defeated in his ;id for reelection, ;eca e no orethan a <caretaker< ad inistrator hose dut+ as to <prepare for the orderl+ transfer of authorit+ to theinco ing 5resident.< Said the Court"

Page | 79









<3he filling up of vacancies in i portant positions, if fe , and so spaced as to afford so e assurance ofdeli;erate action and careful consideration of the need for the appoint ent and appointee9s 7ualifications

a+ undou;tedl+ ;e per itted. 8ut the issuance of 1'= appoint ents in one night and the planned inductionof al ost all of the in a fe hours ;efore the inauguration of the ne 5resident a+, ith so e reason, ;eregarded ;+ the latter as an a;use of 5residential prerogatives, the steps taken ;eing apparentl+ a erepartisan effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions, and there;+ to deprivethe ne ad inistration of an opportunit+ to ake the corresponding appoint ents.<

&s indicated, the Court recogni!ed that there a+ ell ;e appoint ents to i portant positions hich have to;e ade even after the procla ation of the ne 5resident. Such appoint ents, so long as the+ are <fe andso spaced as to afford so e assurance of deli;erate action and careful consideration of the need for theappoint ent and the appointee9s 7ualifications,< can ;e ade ;+ the outgoing 5resident. &ccordingl+,several appoint ents ade ;+ 5resident Barcia, hich ere sho n to have ;een ell considered, ereupheld.

Section $', &rticle VII has a ;roader scope than the &+tona ruling. It a+ not unreasona;l+ ;e dee ed toconte plate not onl+ < idnight< appoint ents - those ade o;viousl+ for partisan reasons as sho n ;+their nu ;er and the ti e of their aking - ;ut also appoint ents presu ed ade for the purpose ofinfluencing the outco e of the 5residential election.

On the other hand, the e6ception in the sa e Section $' of &rticle VII - allo ing appoint ents to ;e adeduring the period of the ;an therein provided - is uch narro er than that recogni!ed in !ytona . 3hee6ception allo s onl+ the aking of temporary appoint ents to eAecutive positions hen continuedvacancies ill prejudice public service or endan(er public safety . O;viousl+, the article greatl+ restricts theappointing po er of the 5resident during the period of the ;an.

Considering the respective reasons for the ti e fra es for filling vacancies in the courts and the restrictionon the 5resident9s po er of appoint ent, it is this Court9s vie that, as a general proposition, in case ofconflict, the for er should +ield to the latter. Surel+, the prevention of vote-;u+ing and si ilar evils out eighsthe need for avoiding dela+s in filling up of court vacancies or the disposition of so e cases. 3e porar+vacancies can a;ide the period of the ;an hich, incidentall+ and as earlier pointed out, co es to e6ist onl+once in ever+ si6 +ears. 4oreover, those occurring in the lo er courts can ;e filled te poraril+ ;+designation. 8ut prohi;ited appoint ents are long-lasting and per anent in their effects. 3he+ a+, asearlier pointed out, in fact influence the results of elections and, for that reason, their aking is consideredan election offense. *

Biven the ;ackground and rationale for the prohi;ition in Section $', &rticle VII, e have no dou;t that theConstitutional Co ission confined the prohi;ition to appoint ents ade in the E6ecutive Depart ent. 3hefra ers did not need to e6tend the prohi;ition to appoint ents in the :udiciar+, ;ecause their esta;lish entof the :8C and their su;jecting the no ination and screening of candidates for judicial positions to theunhurried and deli;erate prior process of the :8C ensured that there ould no longer ;e idnightappoint ents to the :udiciar+. If idnight appoint ents in the old of &+tona ere ade in haste and ithirregularities, or ade ;+ an outgoing Chief E6ecutive in the last da+s of his ad inistration out of a desire to

su;vert the policies of the inco ing 5resident or for partisanship,**

the appoint ents to the :udiciar+ adeafter the esta;lish ent of the :8C ould not ;e suffering fro such defects ;ecause of the :8C9s priorprocessing of candidates. Indeed, it is a6io atic in statutor+ construction that the ascertain ent of thepurpose of the enact ent is a step in the process of ascertaining the intent or eaning of the enact ent,;ecause the reason for the enact ent ust necessaril+ shed considera;le light on <the la of the statute,<i.e., the intent/ hence, the enact ent should ;e construed ith reference to its intended scope and purpose,and the court should seek to carr+ out this purpose rather than to defeat it. *)

&lso, the intervention of the :8C eli inates the danger that appoint ents to the :udiciar+ can ;e ade forthe purpose of ;u+ing votes in a co ing presidential election, or of satisf+ing partisan considerations. 3hee6perience fro the ti e of the esta;lish ent of the :8C sho s that even candidates for judicial positions at

Page | 80









an+ level ;acked ;+ people influential ith the 5resident could not al a+s ;e assured of ;eingreco ended for the consideration of the 5resident, ;ecause the+ first had to undergo the vetting of the:8C and pass uster there. Indeed, the creation of the :8C as precisel+ intended to de-politici!e the:udiciar+ ;+ doing a a+ ith the intervention of the Co ission on &ppoint ents. 3his insulating process

as a;sent fro the &+tona idnight appoint ent.

3hird. &s earlier stated, the non-applica;ilit+ of Section $', &rticle VII to appoint ents in the :udiciar+ asconfir ed ;+ then Senior &ssociate :ustice Regalado to the :8C itself hen it et on 4arch (, $(() to

discuss the 7uestion raised ;+ so e sectors a;out the <constitutionalit+ of 666 appoint ents< to the Court of &ppeals in light of the forthco ing presidential elections. ?e assured that <on the ;asis of the#Constitutional% Co ission9s records, the election ;an had no application to appoint ents to the Court of

&ppeals.< *( 3his confir ation as accepted ;+ the :8C, hich then su; itted to the 5resident forconsideration the no inations for the eight vacancies in the Court of &ppeals. )=

3he fault of Valen!uela as that it accorded no eight and due consideration to the confir ation of :usticeRegalado. Valen!uela as eak, ;ecause it relied on interpretation to deter ine the intent of the fra ersrather than on the deli;erations of the Constitutional Co ission. 4uch of the unfounded dou;t a;out the5resident9s po er to appoint during the period of prohi;ition in Section $', &rticle VII could have ;eendispelled since its pro ulgation on Nove ;er (, $((), had Valen!uela properl+ ackno ledged and relied onthe confir ation of a distinguished e ;er of the Constitutional Co ission like :ustice Regalado.

ourth. Of the 01 sections in &rticle VII, three #i.e., Section $2, Section$', and Section $ % concern theappointing po ers of the 5resident.

Section $2 speaks of the po er of the succeeding 5resident to revoke appoint ents ade ;+ an &cting5resident, )$ and evidentl+ refers onl+ to appoint ents in the E6ecutive Depart ent. It has no application toappoint ents in the :udiciar+, ;ecause te porar+ or acting appoint ents can onl+ under ine theindependence of the :udiciar+ due to their ;eing revoca;le at ill. )0 3he letter and spirit of the Constitutionsafeguard that independence. &lso, there is no la in the ;ooks that authori!es the revocation ofappoint ents in the :udiciar+. 5rior to their andator+ retire ent or resignation, judges of the first andsecond level courts and the :ustices of the third level courts a+ onl+ ;e re oved for cause, ;ut the4e ;ers of the Supre e Court a+ ;e re oved onl+ ;+ i peach ent.

Section $ covers onl+ the presidential appoint ents that re7uire confir ation ;+ the Co ission on &ppoint ents. 3here;+, the Constitutional Co ission restored the re7uire ent of confir ation ;+ theCo ission on &ppoint ents after the re7uire ent as re oved fro the $(*1 Constitution. et, ;ecauseof Section ( of &rticle VIII, the restored re7uire ent did not include appoint ents to the :udiciar+ .)1

Section $2, Section $', and Section $ are o;viousl+ of the sa e character, in that the+ affect the po er ofthe 5resident to appoint. 3he fact that Section $2 and Section $ refer onl+ to appoint ents ithin theE6ecutive Depart ent renders conclusive that Section $' also applies onl+ to the E6ecutive Depart ent.3his conclusion is consistent ith the rule that ever+ part of the statute ust ;e interpreted ith reference tothe conte6t , i.e. that ever+ part ust ;e considered together ith the other parts, and kept su;servient to the

general intent of the hole enact ent.)2

It is a;surd to assu e that the fra ers deli;eratel+ situated Section$' ;et een Section $2 and Section $ , if the+ intended Section $' to cover all kinds of presidentialappoint ents. If that as their intention in respect of appoint ents to the :udiciar+, the fra ers, if onl+ to ;eclear, ould have easil+ and surel+ inserted a si ilar prohi;ition in &rticle VIII, ost likel+ ithin Section 2#$% thereof.

ifth. 3o hold like the Court did in Valen!uela that Section $' e6tends to appoint ents to the :udiciar+further under ines the intent of the Constitution of ensuring the independence of the :udicial Depart entfro the E6ecutive and @egislative Depart ents. Such a holding ill tie the :udiciar+ and the Supre e Courtto the fortunes or isfortunes of political leaders v+ing for the 5residenc+ in a presidential election.Conse7uentl+, the isdo of having the ne 5resident, instead of the current incu ;ent 5resident, appoint

Page | 81

















the ne6t Chief :ustice is itself suspect, and cannot ensure judicial independence, ;ecause the appointee canalso ;eco e ;eholden to the appointing authorit+. In contrast, the appoint ent ;+ the incu ;ent 5residentdoes not run the sa e risk of co pro ising judicial independence, precisel+ ;ecause her ter ill end ;+:une 1=, 0=$=.

Si6th. 3he argu ent has ;een raised to the effect that there ill ;e no need for the incu ;ent 5resident toappoint during the prohi;ition period the successor of Chief :ustice 5uno ithin the conte6t of Section 2 #$%,

&rticle VIII, ;ecause an+ a+ there ill still ;e a;out 2' da+s of the (= da+s andated in Section 2#$%, &rticle

VIII re aining.

3he argu ent is fla ed, ;ecause it is focused onl+ on the co ing vacanc+ occurring fro Chief :ustice5uno9s retire ent ;+ 4a+ $*, 0=$=. It ignores the need to appl+ Section 2#$% to ever+ situation of a vacanc+in the Supre e Court.

3he argu ent also rests on the fallacious assu ption that there ill still ;e ti e re aining in the (=-da+period under Section 2#$%, &rticle VIII. 3he fallac+ is easil+ de onstra;le, as the OSB has sho n in itsco ent.

Section 2 #1%, &rticle VII re7uires the regular elections to ;e held on the second 4onda+ of 4a+, letting theelections fall on 4a+ ), at the earliest, or 4a+ $2, at the latest. If the regular presidential elections are heldon 4a+ ), the period of the prohi;ition is $$' da+s. If such elections are held on 4a+ $2, the period of theprohi;ition is $=( da+s. Either period of the prohi;ition is longer than the full andator+ (=-da+ period to fillthe vacanc+ in the Supre e Court. 3he result is that there are at least $( occasions #i.e., the difference;et een the shortest possi;le period of the ;an of $=( da+s and the (=-da+ andator+ period forappoint ents% in hich the outgoing 5resident ould ;e in no position to co pl+ ith the constitutional dut+to fill up a vacanc+ in the Supre e Court. It is safe to assu e that the fra ers of the Constitution could nothave intended such an a;surdit+. In fact, in their deli;erations on the andator+ period for the appoint entof Supre e Court :ustices under Section 2 #$%, &rticle VIII, the fra ers neither discussed, nor entioned,nor referred to the ;an against idnight appoint ents under Section $', &rticle VII, or its effects on the (=-da+ period, or vice versa. 3he+ did not need to, ;ecause the+ never intended Section $', &rticle VII to appl+to a vacanc+ in the Supre e Court, or in an+ of the lo er courts.

Seventh. &s a atter of fact, in an e6tre e case, e can even raise a dou;t on hether a :8C list isnecessar+ at all for the 5resident - an+ 5resident - to appoint a Chief :ustice if the appointee is to co e frothe ranks of the sitting justices of the Supre e Court.

Sec. (, &rticle VIII sa+s"

666. 3he 4e ;ers of the Supre e Court 666 shall ;e appointed ;+ the 5resident fro a list of at least threeno inees prepared ;+ the :udicial and 8ar Council for an+ vacanc+. Such appoint ents need noconfir ation.

666

3he provision clearl+ refers to an appointee co ing into the Supre e Court fro the outside, that is, a non-e ;er of the Court aspiring to ;eco e one. It speaks of candidates for the Supre e Court, not of thoseho are alread+ e ;ers or sitting justices of the Court, all of ho have previousl+ ;een vetted ;+ the

:8C.

Can the 5resident, therefore, appoint an+ of the incu ;ent :ustices of the Court as Chief :usticeL

3he 7uestion is not s7uarel+ ;efore us at the o ent, ;ut it should lend itself to a deeper anal+sis if andhen circu stances per it. It should ;e a good issue for the proposed Constitutional Convention to

Page | 82



consider in the light of Senate 5resident :uan 5once Enrile9s state ent that the 5resident can appoint theChief :ustice fro a ong the sitting justices of the Court even ithout a :8C list.

II

3he :udiciar+ &ct of $(2)

3he posture has ;een taken that no urgenc+ e6ists for the 5resident to appoint the successor of Chief

:ustice 5uno, considering that the :udiciar+ &ct of $(2) can still address the situation of having the ne6t5resident appoint the successor.

Section $0 of the :udiciar+ &ct of $(2) states"

Section $0. Vacanc+ in Office of Chief :ustice. - In case of a vacanc+ in the office of Chief :ustice of theSupre e Court or of his ina;ilit+ to perfor the duties and po ers of his office, the+ shall devolve upon the

&ssociate :ustice ho is first in precedence, until such disa;ilit+ is re oved, or another Chief :ustice isappointed and dul+ 7ualified. 3his provision shall appl+ to ever+ &ssociate :ustice ho succeeds to theoffice of Chief :ustice.

3he provision calls for an ! cting Chief :ustice in the event of a vacanc+ in the office of the Chief :ustice, orin the event that the Chief :ustice is una;le to perfor his duties and po ers. In either of suchcircu stances, the duties and po ers of the office of the Chief :ustice shall devolve upon the &ssociate:ustice ho is first in precedence until a ne Chief :ustice is appointed or until the disa;ilit+ is re oved.

Not ithstanding that there is no pressing need to d ell on this peripheral atter after the Court has here;+resolved the 7uestion of conse7uence, e do not find it a iss to confront the atter no .

Ae cannot agree ith the posture.

& revie of Sections 2#$% and ( of &rticle VIII sho s that the Supre e Court is co posed of a Chief :usticeand $2 &ssociate :ustices, ho all shall ;e appointed ;+ the 5resident fro a list of at least three no inees

prepared ;+ the :8C for ever+ vacanc+, hich appoint ents re7uire no confir ation ;+ the Co ission on &ppoint ents. Aith reference to the Chief :ustice, he or she is appointed ;+ the 5resident as Chief :ustice,and the appoint ent is never in an acting capacit+. 3he e6press reference to a Chief :ustice a;hors the ideathat the fra ers conte plated an &cting Chief :ustice to head the e ;ership of the Supre e Court.Other ise, the+ ould have si pl+ ritten so in the Constitution. Conse7uentl+, to rel+ on Section $0 of the:udiciar+ &ct of $(2) in order to forestall the i perative need to appoint the ne6t Chief :ustice soonest is todef+ the plain intent of the Constitution.

or sure, the fra ers intended the position of Chief :ustice to ;e per anent, not one to ;e occupied in anacting or te porar+ capacit+. In relation to the sche e of things under the present Constitution, Section $0of the :udiciar+ &ct of $(2) onl+ responds to a rare situation in hich the ne Chief :ustice is not +etappointed, or in hich the incu ;ent Chief :ustice is una;le to perfor the duties and po ers of the office.It ought to ;e re e ;ered, ho ever, that it as enacted ;ecause the Chief :ustice appointed under the$(1' Constitution as su;ject to the confir ation of the Co ission on &ppoint ents, and the confir ationprocess ight take longer than e6pected.

3he appoint ent of the ne6t Chief :ustice ;+ the incu ;ent 5resident is prefera;le to having the &ssociate:ustice ho is first in precedence take over. >nder the Constitution, the heads of the @egislative andE6ecutive Depart ents are popularl+ elected, and hoever are elected and proclai ed at once ;eco e theleaders of their respective Depart ents. ?o ever, the lack of an+ appointed occupant of the office of Chief:ustice har s the independence of the :udiciar+, ;ecause the Chief :ustice is the head of the entire:udiciar+. 3he Chief :ustice perfor s functions a;solutel+ significant to the life of the nation. Aith the entireSupre e Court ;eing the 5residential Electoral 3ri;unal, the Chief :ustice is the Chair an of the 3ri;unal.

Page | 83





or the lo er courts, t'% (%s*$%+t s' == *ssu% t'% o*+t %+ts @*t'*+ +*+%t2 $ 2s &(o t'%su> *ss*o+ o& t'% =*st.

?o ever, Section 2#$% and Section (, &rticle VIII, andate the 5resident to fill the vacanc+ in the Supre eCourt ithin (= da+s fro the occurrence of the vacanc+, and ithin (= da+s fro the su; ission of the list,in the case of the lo er courts. 3he (=-da+ period is directed at the 5resident, not at the :8C. 3hus, the :8Cshould start the process of selecting the candidates to fill the vacanc+ in the Supre e Court ;efore theoccurrence of the vacanc+.

>nder the Constitution, it is andator+ for the :8C to su; it to the 5resident the list of no inees to fill avacanc+ in the Supre e Court in order to ena;le the 5resident to appoint one of the ithin the (=-da+period fro the occurrence of the vacanc+. 3he :8C has no discretion to su; it the list to the 5resident after the vacanc+ occurs, ;ecause that shortens the (=-da+ period allo ed ;+ the Constitution for the 5resident to

ake the appoint ent. or the :8C to do so ill ;e unconsciona;le on its part, considering that it illthere;+ effectivel+ and illegall+ deprive the 5resident of the a ple ti e granted under the Constitution toreflect on the 7ualifications of the no inees na ed in the list of the :8C ;efore aking the appoint ent.

3he dut+ of the :8C to su; it a list of no inees ;efore the start of the 5resident9s andator+ (=-da+ periodto appoint is inisterial, ;ut its selection of the candidates hose na es ill ;e in the list to ;e su; itted tothe 5resident lies ithin the discretion of the :8C. 3he o;ject of the petitions for anda us herein should

onl+ refer to the dut+ to su; it to the 5resident the list of no inees for ever+ vacanc+ in the :udiciar+,;ecause in order to constitute unla ful neglect of dut+, there ust ;e an unjustified dela+ in perfor ing thatdut+. )) or mandamus to lie against the :8C, therefore, there should ;e an une6plained dela+ on its part inreco ending no inees to the :udiciar+, that is, in su; itting the list to the 5resident.

3he distinction ;et een a inisterial act and a discretionar+ one has ;een delineated in the follo inganner"

3he distinction ;et een a inisterial and discretionar+ act is ell delineated. & u(%=2 *+*st%(* = -t o($ut2 *s o+% @'*-' + o&&*-%( o( t(*>u+ = %(&o( s *+ g*<%+ st t% o& & -ts, *+ (%s-(*>%$ o>%$*%+-% to t'% +$ t% o& =%g = ut'o(*t2, @*t'out (%g ($ to o( t'% % %(-*s% o& '*s o@+ ?u$u o+ t'% (o (*%t2 o( * (o (*%t2 o& t'% -t $o+%. If the = @ * os%s $ut2 u o+ u>=*- o&&*-%g*<%s '* t'% (*g't to $%-*$% 'o@ o( @'%+ t'% $ut2 s' == >% %(&o( %$, su-' $ut2 *s$*s-(%t*o+ (2 and not inisterial. 3he $ut2 *s *+*st%(* = o+=2 @'%+ t'% $*s-' (g% o& t'% s % (% u+%*t'%( t'% % %(-*s% o& o&&*-* = $*s-(%t*o+ o( ?u$g %+t.)(

&ccordingl+, e find no sufficient grounds to grant the petitions for anda us and to issue a rit ofanda us against the :8C. 3he actions for that purpose are pre ature, ;ecause it is clear that the :8C still

has until 4a+ $*, 0=$=, at the latest, ithin hich to su; it the list of no inees to the 5resident to fill thevacanc+ created ;+ the co pulsor+ retire ent of Chief :ustice 5uno.

IV

(*t o& (o'*>*t*o+ $o%s +ot =*% g *+st t'% BC

In light of the foregoing dis7uisitions, the conclusion is inelucta;le that onl+ the 5resident can appoint theChief :ustice. ?ence, Soriano9s petition for prohi;ition in B.R. No. $($=10, hich proposes to prevent the:8C fro intervening in the process of no inating the successor of Chief :ustice 5uno, lacks erit.

On the other hand, the petition for prohi;ition in B.R. No. $($120 is si ilarl+ devoid of erit. 3he challengeounted against the co position of the :8C ;ased on the allegedl+ unconstitutional allocation of a vote

each to the e6 officio e ;ers fro the Senate and the ?ouse of Representatives, there;+ prejudicing thechances of so e candidates for no ination ;+ raising the ini u nu ;er of votes re7uired in accordance

ith the rules of the :8C, is not ;ased on the petitioners9 actual interest, ;ecause the+ have not alleged in

Page | 85







their petition that the+ ere no inated to the :8C to fill so e vacancies in the :udiciar+. 3hus, thepetitioners lack locus standi on that issue.

"ERE)ORE, the Court"

$. Dis isses the petitions for certiorari and anda us in B.R. No. $($==0 and B.R. No. $($$2(,and the petition for anda us in B.R. No. $($='* for ;eing pre ature/

0. Dis isses the petitions for prohi;ition in B.R. No. $($=10 and B.R. No. $($120 for lack of erit/and

1. Brants the petition in &.4. No. $=-0-'-SC and, accordingl+, directs the :udicial and 8ar Council"

#a% 3o resu e its proceedings for the no ination of candidates to fill the vacanc+ to ;ecreated ;+ the co pulsor+ retire ent of Chief :ustice Re+nato S. 5uno ;+ 4a+ $*, 0=$=/

#;% 3o prepare the short list of no inees for the position of Chief :ustice/

#c% 3o su; it to the incu ;ent 5resident the short list of no inees for the position of Chief:ustice on or ;efore 4a+ $*, 0=$=/ and

#d% 3o continue its proceedings for the no ination of candidates to fill other vacancies in the:udiciar+ and su; it to the 5resident the short list of no inees corresponding thereto inaccordance ith this decision.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 86



# %5 EN BANC

G.R. No. '9'00% A) *+ %0, %0'0

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, +etitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL JBC and RESIDENT GLORIAMACA AGAL - ARRO/O, espondents.

& ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;&

E % L > T ! % N

BERSAMIN, J.:

%n Mar$h (0, )4(4, the Court promul"ated its de$ision, holdin"2

< E E8% E, the Court2

(. ismisses the petitions for $ertiorari and mandamus in . . No. (/(44) and . . No. (/((D/, and the petitionfor mandamus in . . No. (/(4-0 for bein" premature6

). ismisses the petitions for prohibition in . . No. (/(41) and . . No. (/(1D) for la$: of merit6 and

1. rants the petition in A.M. No. (4;);-; C and, a$$ordin"ly, dire$ts the Judi$ial and Bar Coun$il2

'a* To resume its pro$eedin"s for the nomination of $andidates to fill the va$an$y to be $reated by the$ompulsory retirement of Chief Justi$e eynato . +uno by May (0, )4(46

'b* To prepare the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justi$e6

'$* To submit to the in$umbent +resident the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justi$e on or before May (0, )4(46 and

'd* To $ontinue its pro$eedin"s for the nomination of $andidates to fill other va$an$ies in the Judi$iary andsubmit to the +resident the short list of nominees $orrespondin" thereto in a$$ordan$e #ith this de$ision.

% % E E .

Motions for e$onsideration

+etitioners Jaime N. oriano ' . . No. (/(41)*, Amador . Tolentino and oland B. !ntin" ' . . No. (/(1D)*, and+hilippine Bar Asso$iation ' . . No. (/(D)4*, as #ell as intervenors !nte"rated Bar of the +hilippines; avao del ur '!B+;

avao del ur, et al.*6 Christian obert . Lim6 +eter !rvin" Corvera6 Ba"on" Alyansan" Bayan and others 'BAFAN, et al.*6Alfonso . Tan, Jr.6 the <omen Trial La#yers %r"anization of the +hilippines '<TL%+*6 Marlou B. >bano6 Mit$hell John L.Boiser6 and <alden 8. Bello and Loretta Ann +. osales 'Bello, et al.*, filed their respe$tive motions for re$onsideration. Alsofilin" a motion for re$onsideration #as enator A=uilino 5. +imentel, Jr., #hose belated intervention #as allo#ed.

<e summarize the ar"uments and submissions of the various motions for re$onsideration, in the afore"iven order2

oriano

(. The Court has not s=uarely ruled upon or addressed the issue of #hether or not the po#er to desi"nate the ChiefJusti$e belon"ed to the upreme Court en ban$.

Page | 87



). The Mendoza petition should have been dismissed, be$ause it sou"ht a mere de$laratory 9ud"ment and did notinvolve a 9usti$iable $ontroversy.

1. All Justi$es of the Court should parti$ipate in the ne&t deliberations. The mere fa$t that the Chief Justi$e sits as e&offi$io head of the JBC should not prevail over the more $ompellin" state interest for him to parti$ipate as a Member of the Court.

Tolentino and !ntin"

(. A plain readin" of e$tion (-, Arti$le !! does not lead to an interpretation that e&empts 9udi$ial appointmentsfrom the e&press ban on midni"ht appointments.

). !n e&$ludin" the Judi$iary from the ban, the Court has made distin$tions and has $reated e&emptions #hen nonee&ists.

1. The ban on midni"ht appointments is pla$ed in Arti$le !!, not in Arti$le !!!, be$ause it limits an e&e$utive, nota 9udi$ial, po#er.

D. esort to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission is superfluous, and is po#erless to vary the terms ofthe $lear prohibition.

-. The Court has "iven too mu$h $redit to the position ta:en by Justi$e e"alado. Thereby, the Court has raised theConstitution to the level of a venerated te&t #hose intent $an only be divined by its framers as to be outside therealm of understandin" by the soverei"n people that ratified it.

3. alenzuela should not be reversed.

0. The petitioners, as ta&payers and la#yers, have the $lear le"al standin" to =uestion the ille"al $omposition of theJBC.

+hilippine Bar Asso$iation

(. The CourtGs strained interpretation of the Constitution violates the basi$ prin$iple that the Court should notformulate a rule of $onstitutional la# broader than #hat is re=uired by the pre$ise fa$ts of the $ase.

). Considerin" that e$tion (-, Arti$le !! is $lear and strai"htfor#ard, the only duty of the Court is to apply it. The provision e&pressly and $learly provides a "eneral limitation on the appointin" po#er of the +resident in prohibitin"the appointment of any person to any position in the overnment #ithout any =ualifi$ation and distin$tion.

1. The Court "ravely erred in unilaterally i"norin" the $onstitutional safe"uard a"ainst midni"ht appointments.

D. The Constitution has installed t#o $onstitutional safe"uards2; the prohibition a"ainst midni"ht appointments, andthe $reation of the JBC. !t is not #ithin the authority of the Court to prefer one over the other, for the CourtGs duty isto apply the safe"uards as they are, not as the Court li:es them to be.

-. The Court has erred in failin" to apply the basi$ prin$iples of statutory $onstru$tion in interpretin" theConstitution.

3. The Court has erred in relyin" heavily on the title, $hapter or se$tion headin"s, despite pre$edents on statutory$onstru$tion holdin" that su$h headin"s $arried very little #ei"ht.

0. The Constitution has provided a "eneral rule on midni"ht appointments, and the only e&$eption is that ontemporary appointments to e&e$utive positions.

Page | 88



H. The Court has erred in dire$tin" the JBC to resume the pro$eedin"s for the nomination of the $andidates to fill theva$an$y to be $reated by the $ompulsory retirement of Chief Justi$e +uno #ith a vie# to submittin" the list ofnominees for Chief Justi$e to +resident Arroyo on or before May (0, )4(4. The Constitution "rants the Court onlythe po#er of supervision over the JBC6 hen$e, the Court $annot tell the JBC #hat to do, ho# to do it, or #hen to doit, espe$ially in the absen$e of a real and 9usti$iable $ase assailin" any spe$ifi$ a$tion or ina$tion of the JBC.

/. The Court has en"a"ed in renderin" an advisory opinion and has indul"ed in spe$ulations.

(4. The $onstitutional ban on appointments bein" already in effe$t, the CourtGs dire$tin" the JBC to $omply #ith thede$ision $onstitutes a $ulpable violation of the Constitution and the $ommission of an ele$tion offense.

((. The Court $annot reverse on the basis of a se$ondary authority a do$trine unanimously formulated by the Courten ban$.

(). The pra$ti$e has been for the most senior Justi$e to a$t as Chief Justi$e #henever the in$umbent is indisposed.Thus, the appointment of the su$$essor Chief Justi$e is not ur"ently ne$essary.

(1. The prin$ipal purpose for the ban on midni"ht appointments is to arrest any attempt to prolon" the out"oin"+residentGs po#ers by means of pro&ies. The attempt of the in$umbent +resident to appoint the ne&t Chief Justi$e isundeniably intended to perpetuate her po#er beyond her term of offi$e.

!B+; avao del ur, et al.

(. !ts lan"ua"e bein" unambi"uous, e$tion (-, Arti$le !! of the Constitution applies to appointments to theJudi$iary. en$e, no $o"ent reason e&ists to #arrant the reversal of the alenzuela pronoun$ement.

). e$tion (3, Arti$le !! of the Constitution provides for presidential appointments to the ConstitutionalCommissions and the JBC #ith the $onsent of the Commission on Appointments. !ts phrase 7other offi$ers #hoseappointments are vested in him in this Constitution7 is enou"h proof that the limitation on the appointin" po#er ofthe +resident e&tends to appointments to the Judi$iary. Thus, e$tion (D, e$tion (-, and e$tion (3 of Arti$le !!apply to all presidential appointments in the E&e$utive and Judi$ial Bran$hes of the overnment.

1. There is no eviden$e that the framers of the Constitution abhorred the idea of an A$tin" Chief Justi$e in all $ases.

Lim

(. There is no 9usti$iable $ontroversy that #arrants the CourtGs e&er$ise of 9udi$ial revie#.

). The ele$tion ban under e$tion (-, Arti$le !! applies to appointments to fill a va$an$y in the Court and to otherappointments to the Judi$iary.

1. The $reation of the JBC does not 9ustify the removal of the safe"uard under e$tion (- of Arti$le !! a"ainstmidni"ht appointments in the Judi$iary.

Corvera

(. The CourtGs e&$lusion of appointments to the Judi$iary from the Constitutional ban on midni"ht appointments is based on an interpretation beyond the plain and une=uivo$al lan"ua"e of the Constitution.

). The intent of the ban on midni"ht appointments is to $over appointments in both the E&e$utive and Judi$ialepartments. The appli$ation of the prin$iple of verba le"is 'ordinary meanin"* #ould have obviated d#ellin" on

the or"anization and arran"ement of the provisions of the Constitution. !f there is any ambi"uity in e$tion (-,Arti$le !!, the intent behind the provision, #hi$h is to prevent politi$al partisanship in all bran$hes of the

overnment, should have $ontrolled.

Page | 89



1. A plain readin" is preferred to a $ontorted and strained interpretation based on $ompartmentalization and physi$alarran"ement, espe$ially $onsiderin" that the Constitution must be interpreted as a #hole.

D. esort to the deliberations or to the personal interpretation of the framers of the Constitution should yield to the plain and une=uivo$al lan"ua"e of the Constitution.

-. There is no suffi$ient reason for reversin" alenzuela, a rulin" that is reasonable and in a$$ord #ith theConstitution.

BAFAN, et al.

(. The Court erred in "rantin" the petition in A.M. No. (4;);-; C, be$ause the petition did not present a 9usti$iable$ontroversy. The issues it raised #ere not yet ripe for ad9udi$ation, $onsiderin" that the offi$e of the Chief Justi$e#as not yet va$ant and that the JBC itself has yet to de$ide #hether or not to submit a list of nominees to the+resident.

). The $olle$tive #isdom of alenzuela Court is more important and $ompellin" than the opinion of Justi$ee"alado.

1. !n rulin" that e$tion (-, Arti$le !! is in $onfli$t #ith e$tion D'(*, Arti$le !!!, the Court has violated the prin$iple of ut ma"is valeat =uam pereat '#hi$h mandates that the Constitution should be interpreted as a #hole,su$h that any $onfli$tin" provisions are to be harmonized as to fully "ive effe$t to all*. There is no $onfli$t bet#eenthe provisions6 they $omplement ea$h other.

D. The form and stru$ture of the ConstitutionGs titles, $hapters, se$tions, and draftsmanship $arry little #ei"ht instatutory $onstru$tion. The $lear and plain lan"ua"e of e$tion (-, Arti$le !! pre$ludes interpretation.

Tan, Jr.

(. The fa$tual ante$edents do not present an a$tual $ase or $ontroversy. The $lash of le"al ri"hts and interests in the present $ase are merely anti$ipated. Even if it is anti$ipated #ith $ertainty, no a$tual va$an$y in the position of theChief Justi$e has yet o$$urred.

). The rulin" that e$tion (-, Arti$le !! does not apply to a va$an$y in the Court and the Judi$iary runs in $onfli$t#ith lon" standin" prin$iples and do$trines of statutory $onstru$tion. The provision admits only one e&$eption,temporary appointments in the E&e$utive epartment. Thus, the Court should not distin"uish, be$ause the la# itselfma:es no distin$tion.

1. alenzuela #as erroneously reversed. The framers of the Constitution $learly intended the ban on midni"htappointments to $over the members of the Judi$iary. en$e, "ivin" more #ei"ht to the opinion of Justi$e e"aladoto reverse the en ban$ de$ision in alenzuela #as un#arranted.

D. e$tion (-, Arti$le !! is not in$ompatible #ith e$tion D'(*, Arti$le !!!. The /4;day mandate to fill any va$an$ylasts until Au"ust (-, )4(4, or a month and a half after the end of the ban. The ne&t +resident has rou"hly the same

time of D- days as the in$umbent +resident 'i.e., DD days* #ithin #hi$h to s$rutinize and study the =ualifi$ations ofthe ne&t Chief Justi$e. Thus, the JBC has more than enou"h opportunity to e&amine the nominees #ithout haste and politi$al un$ertainty. 1avvphi1

-. <hen the $onstitutional ban is in pla$e, the /4;day period under e$tion D'(*, Arti$le !!! is suspended.

3. There is no basis to dire$t the JBC to submit the list of nominees on or before May (0, )4(4. The dire$tive to theJBC san$tions a $ulpable violation of the Constitution and $onstitutes an ele$tion offense.

0. There is no pressin" ne$essity for the appointment of a Chief Justi$e, be$ause the Court sits en ban$, even #hen ita$ts as the sole 9ud"e of all $ontests relative to the ele$tion, returns and =ualifi$ations of the +resident and i$e;+resident. 8ourteen other Members of the Court $an validly $omprise the +residential Ele$toral Tribunal.

Page | 90





(. Any $onstitutional interpretative $han"es must be reasonable, rational, and $onformable to the "eneral intent ofthe Constitution as a limitation to the po#ers of overnment and as a bastion for the prote$tion of the ri"hts of the

people. Thus, in harmonizin" seemin"ly $onfli$tin" provisions of the Constitution, the interpretation should al#ays be one that prote$ts the $itizenry from an ever e&pandin" "rant of authority to its representatives.

). The de$ision e&pands the $onstitutional po#ers of the +resident in a manner totally repu"nant to republi$an$onstitutional demo$ra$y, and is tantamount to a 9udi$ial amendment of the Constitution #ithout proper authority.

Comments

The %ffi$e of the oli$itor eneral '% * and the JBC separately represent in their respe$tive $omments, thus2

%

(. The JBC may be $ompelled to submit to the +resident a short list of its nominees for the position of Chief Justi$e.

). The in$umbent +resident has the po#er to appoint the ne&t Chief Justi$e.

1. e$tion (-, Arti$le !! does not apply to the Judi$iary.

D. The prin$iples of $onstitutional $onstru$tion favor the e&emption of the Judi$iary from the ban on midni"htappointments. 1awph!1

-. The Court has the duty to $onsider and resolve all issues raised by the parties as #ell as other related matters.

JBC

(. The $onsolidated petitions should have been dismissed for prematurity, be$ause the JBC has not yet de$ided at thetime the petitions #ere filed #hether the in$umbent +resident has the po#er to appoint the ne# Chief Justi$e, and

be$ause the JBC, havin" yet to intervie# the $andidates, has not submitted a short list to the +resident.

). The statement in the de$ision that there is a doubt on #hether a JBC short list is ne$essary for the +resident to

appoint a Chief Justi$e should be stru$: do#n as bereft of $onstitutional and le"al basis. The statement underminesthe independen$e of the JBC.

1. The JBC #ill abide by the final de$ision of the Court, but in a$$ord #ith its $onstitutional mandate and itsimplementin" rules and re"ulations.

8or his part, petitioner Estelito +. Mendoza 'A.M. No. (4;);-; C* submits his $omment even if the % and the JBC #erethe only ones the Court has re=uired to do so. e states that the motions for re$onsideration #ere dire$ted at theadministrative matter he initiated and #hi$h the Court resolved. is $omment asserts2

(. The "rounds of the motions for re$onsideration #ere already resolved by the de$ision and the separate opinion.

). The administrative matter he brou"ht invo:ed the CourtGs po#er of supervision over the JBC as provided bye$tion H'(*, Arti$le !!! of the Constitution, as distin"uished from the CourtGs ad9udi$atory po#er under e$tion (,

Arti$le !!!. !n the former, the re=uisites for 9udi$ial revie# are not re=uired, #hi$h #as #hy Valenzuela #asdo$:eted as an administrative matter. Considerin" that the JBC itself has yet to ta:e a position on #hen to submit theshort list to the proper appointin" authority, it has effe$tively soli$ited the e&er$ise by the Court of its po#er ofsupervision over the JBC.

1. To apply e$tion (-, Arti$le !! to e$tion D'(* and e$tion /, Arti$le !!! is to amend the Constitution.

Page | 92



D. The portions of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission =uoted in the dissent of Justi$e CarpioMorales, as #ell as in some of the motions for re$onsideration do not refer to either e$tion (-, Arti$le !! or

e$tion D'(*, Arti$le !!!, but to e$tion (1, Arti$le !! 'on nepotism*.

ulin"

<e deny the motions for re$onsideration for la$: of merit, for all the matters bein" thereby raised and ar"ued, not bein" ne#,have all been resolved by the de$ision of Mar$h (0, )4(4.

Nonetheless, the Court opts to d#ell on some matters only for the purpose of $larifi$ation and emphasis.

8irst2 Most of the movants $ontend that the prin$iple of stare de$isis is $ontrollin", and a$$ordin"ly insist that the Court haserred in disobeyin" or abandonin" alenzuela. (

The $ontention has no basis.

tare de$isis derives its name from the Latin ma&im stare de$isis et non =uieta movere, i.e., to adhere to pre$edent and not tounsettle thin"s that are settled. !t simply means that a prin$iple underlyin" the de$ision in one $ase is deemed of imperativeauthority, $ontrollin" the de$isions of li:e $ases in the same $ourt and in lo#er $ourts #ithin the same 9urisdi$tion, unless anduntil the de$ision in =uestion is reversed or overruled by a $ourt of $ompetent authority. The de$isions relied upon as

pre$edents are $ommonly those of appellate $ourts, be$ause the de$isions of the trial $ourts may be appealed to hi"her $ourtsand for that reason are probably not the best eviden$e of the rules of la# laid do#n. )

Judi$ial de$isions assume the same authority as a statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, ne$essarily be$ome, tothe e&tent that they are appli$able, the $riteria that must $ontrol the a$tuations, not only of those $alled upon to abide bythem, but also of those duty;bound to enfor$e obedien$e to them .1 !n a hierar$hi$al 9udi$ial system li:e ours, the de$isions ofthe hi"her $ourts bind the lo#er $ourts, but the $ourts of $o;ordinate authority do not bind ea$h other. The one hi"hest $ourtdoes not bind itself, bein" invested #ith the innate authority to rule a$$ordin" to its best li"hts. D

The Court, as the hi"hest $ourt of the land, may be "uided but is not $ontrolled by pre$edent. Thus, the Court, espe$ially #itha ne# membership, is not obli"ed to follo# blindly a parti$ular de$ision that it determines, after re;e&amination, to $all for are$tifi$ation. - The adheren$e to pre$edents is stri$t and ri"id in a $ommon;la# settin" li:e the >nited Iin"dom, #here 9ud"esma:e la# as bindin" as an A$t of +arliament. 3 But ours is not a $ommon;la# system6 hen$e, 9udi$ial pre$edents are notal#ays stri$tly and ri"idly follo#ed. A 9udi$ial pronoun$ement in an earlier de$ision may be follo#ed as a pre$edent in asubse=uent $ase only #hen its reasonin" and 9ustifi$ation are relevant, and the $ourt in the latter $ase a$$epts su$h reasonin"and 9ustifi$ation to be appli$able to the $ase. The appli$ation of the pre$edent is for the sa:e of $onvenien$e and stability.

8or the intervenors to insist that alenzuela ou"ht not to be disobeyed, or abandoned, or reversed, and that its #isdom should"uide, if not $ontrol, the Court in this $ase is, therefore, devoid of rationality and foundation. They seem to $onvenientlyfor"et that the Constitution itself re$o"nizes the innate authority of the Court en ban$ to modify or reverse a do$trine or

prin$iple of la# laid do#n in any de$ision rendered en ban$ or in division. 0

e$ond2 ome intervenors are "rossly misleadin" the publi$ by their insisten$e that the Constitutional Commission e&tendedto the Judi$iary the ban on presidential appointments durin" the period stated in e$tion (-, Arti$le !!.

The deliberations that the dissent of Justi$e Carpio Morales =uoted from the re$ords of the Constitutional Commission didnot $on$ern either e$tion (-, Arti$le !! or e$tion D'(*, Arti$le !!!, but only e$tion (1, Arti$le !!, a provision onnepotism. The re$ords of the Constitutional Commission sho# that Commissioner ilario . avide, Jr. had proposed toin$lude 9ud"es and 9usti$es related to the +resident #ithin the fourth $ivil de"ree of $onsan"uinity or affinity amon" the

persons #hom the +resident mi"ht not appoint durin" his or her tenure. !n the end, ho#ever, Commissioner avide, Jr.#ithdre# the proposal to in$lude the Judi$iary in e$tion (1, Arti$le !! 7't*o avoid any further $ompli$ation,7 H su$h that thefinal version of the se$ond para"raph of e$tion (1, Arti$le !! even $ompletely omits any referen$e to the Judi$iary, to #it2

e$tion (1. &&&

Page | 93

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_191002_2010.html#fnt1





















The spouse and relatives by $onsan"uinity or affinity #ithin the fourth $ivil de"ree of the +resident shall not durin" his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the %ffi$e of the %mbudsman, or as e$retaries,>nderse$retaries, $hairmen or heads of bureaus or offi$es, in$ludin" "overnment;o#ned or $ontrolled $orporations and theirsubsidiaries.

Last2 The movants ta:e the ma9ority to tas: for holdin" that e$tion (-, Arti$le !! does not apply to appointments in theJudi$iary. They aver that the Court either i"nored or refused to apply many prin$iples of statutory $onstru$tion.

The movants "ravely err in their posture, and are themselves apparently $ontravenin" their avo#ed relian$e on the prin$iplesof statutory $onstru$tion.

8or one, the movants, disre"ardin" the absen$e from e$tion (-, Arti$le !! of the e&press e&tension of the ban onappointments to the Judi$iary, insist that the ban applied to the Judi$iary under the prin$iple of verba le"is. That is self;$ontradi$tion at its #orst.

Another instan$e is the movantsG unhesitatin" #illin"ness to read into e$tion D'(* and e$tion /, both of Arti$le !!!, thee&press appli$ability of the ban under e$tion (-, Arti$le !! durin" the period provided therein, despite the silen$e of said

provisions thereon. Fet, $onstru$tion $annot supply the omission, for doin" so #ould "enerally $onstitute an en$roa$hmentupon the field of the Constitutional Commission. ather, e$tion D'(* and e$tion / should be left as they are, "iven that their meanin" is $lear and e&pli$it, and no #ords $an be interpolated in them. / !nterpolation of #ords is unne$essary, be$ause thela# is more than li:ely to fail to e&press the le"islative intent #ith the interpolation. !n other #ords, the addition of ne##ords may alter the thou"ht intended to be $onveyed. And, even #here the meanin" of the la# is $lear and sensible, either#ith or #ithout the omitted #ord or #ords, interpolation is improper, be$ause the primary sour$e of the le"islative intent is inthe lan"ua"e of the la# itself .(4

Thus, the de$ision of Mar$h (0, )4(4 has fittin"ly observed2

ad the framers intended to e&tend the prohibition $ontained in e$tion (-, Arti$le !! to the appointment of Members of theupreme Court, they $ould have e&pli$itly done so. They $ould not have i"nored the meti$ulous orderin" of the provisions.

They #ould have easily and surely #ritten the prohibition made e&pli$it in e$tion (-, Arti$le !! as bein" e=ually appli$ableto the appointment of Members of the upreme Court in Arti$le !!! itself, most li:ely in e$tion D '(*, Arti$le !!!. Thatsu$h spe$ifi$ation #as not done only reveals that the prohibition a"ainst the +resident or A$tin" +resident ma:in"appointments #ithin t#o months before the ne&t presidential ele$tions and up to the end of the +residentGs or A$tin"+residentGs term does not refer to the Members of the upreme Court.

<e $annot permit the meanin" of the Constitution to be stret$hed to any unintended point in order to suit the purposes of any=uarter.

8inal <ord

!t has been insinuated as part of the polemi$s attendant to the $ontroversy #e are resolvin" that be$ause all the Members ofthe present Court #ere appointed by the in$umbent +resident, a ma9ority of them are no# "rantin" to her the authority toappoint the su$$essor of the retirin" Chief Justi$e.

The insinuation is mis"uided and utterly unfair.

The Members of the Court vote on the sole basis of their $ons$ien$e and the merits of the issues. Any $laim to the $ontrary pro$eeds from mali$e and $ondes$ension. Neither the out"oin" +resident nor the present Members of the Court had arran"edthe $urrent situation to happen and to evolve as it has. None of the Members of the Court $ould have prevented the Members$omposin" the Court #hen she assumed the +residen$y about a de$ade a"o from retirin" durin" her prolon"ed term andtenure, for their retirements #ere mandatory. Fet, she is no# left #ith an imperative duty under the Constitution to fill up theva$an$ies $reated by su$h ine&orable retirements #ithin /4 days from their o$$urren$e. er offi$ial duty she must $omply#ith. o must #e ours #ho are tas:ed by the Constitution to settle the $ontroversy.

ACC% !N LF, the motions for re$onsideration are denied #ith finality.

Page | 94









% % E E .

# 5 3?IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 118609 D%-% >%( 1, 1996

LI!QETQAI SONS !ILLING, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT O) A EALS, BANQ O) T"E "ILI INEISLANDS +$ NATIONAL BOOQ STORE,respondents.

!ELO, J.:

3he issue in the petition ;efore us is hether or not there as a perfected contract ;et een petitioner@i ketkai Sons 4illing, Inc. and respondent 8ank of the 5hilippine Islands #85I% covering the sale of aparcel of land, appro6i atel+ 1.1 hectares in area, and located in 8arrio 8agong Ilog, 5asig Cit+, 4etro4anila.

8ranch $'$ of the Regional 3rial Court of the National Capital :udicial Region stationed in 5asig ruled thatthere as a perfected contract of sale ;et een petitioner and 85I. It stated that there as utual consent;et een the parties/ the su;ject atter is definite/ and the consideration as deter ined. It concluded thatall the ele ents of a consensual contract are attendant. It ordered the cancellation of a sale effected ;+ 85Ito respondent National 8ook Store #N8S% hile the case as pending and the nullification of a title issued infavor of said respondent N8S.

>pon elevation of the case to the Court of &ppeals, it as held that no contract of sale as perfected;ecause there as no concurrence of the three re7uisites enu erated in &rticle $1$) of the Civil Code. 3hedecision of the trial court as reversed and the co plaint dis issed.

?ence, the instant petition.

Shorn of the interpretations given to the acts of those ho participated in the disputed sale, the findings offacts of the trial court and the Court of &ppeals narrate ;asicall+ the sa e events and occurrences. 3he

records sho that on 4a+ $2, $(* , 5hilippine Re nants Co., Inc. constituted 85I as its trustee to anage,ad inister, and sell its real estate propert+. One such piece of propert+ placed under trust as the disputedlot, a 11,=' -s7uare eter lot at 8arrio 8agong Ilog, 5asig, 4etro 4anila covered ;+ 3ransfer Certificate of3itle No. 2(1$00.

On :une 01, $()), 5edro Revilla, :r., a licensed real estate ;roker as given for al authorit+ ;+ 85I to sellthe lot for 5$,===.== per s7uare eter. 3his arrange ent as concurred in ;+ the o ners of the 5hilippineRe nants.

8roker Revilla contacted &lfonso @i of petitioner co pan+ ho agreed to ;u+ the land. On :ul+ ), $()),petitioner9s officials and Revilla ere given per ission ;+ Rolando V. &ro in, 85I &ssistant Vice-5resident,to enter and vie the propert+ the+ ere ;u+ing.

On :ul+ (, $()), Revilla for all+ infor ed 85I that he had procured a ;u+er, herein petitioner. On :ul+ $$,$()), petitioner9s officials, &lfonso @i and &l;ino @i ketkai, ent to 85I to confir the sale. 3he+ ereentertained ;+ Vice-5resident 4erlin &l;ano and &sst. Vice-5resident &ro in. 5etitioner asked that the priceof 5$,===.== per s7uare eter ;e reduced to 5(==.== hile &l;ano stated the price to ;e 5$,$==.==. 3heparties finall+ agreed that the lot ould ;e sold at 5$,===.== per s7uare eter to ;e paid in cash. Since theauthorit+ to sell as on a first co e, first served and non-e6clusive ;asis, it a+ ;e entioned at this

juncture that there is no dispute over petitioner9s ;eing the first co er and the ;u+er to ;e first served.

Not ithstanding the final agree ent to pa+ 5$,===.== per s7uare eter on a cash ;asis, &lfonso @i askedif it as possi;le to pa+ on ter s. 3he ;ank officials stated that there as no har in tr+ing to ask for

Page | 95



pa+ ent on ter s ;ecause in previous transactions, the sa e had ;een allo ed. It as the understanding,ho ever, that should the ter pa+ ent ;e disapproved, then the price shall ;e paid in cash.

It as &l;ano ho dictated the ter s under hich the install ent pa+ ent a+ ;e approved, and actingthereon, &lfonso @i , on the sa e date, :ul+ $$, $()), rote 85I through 4erlin &l;ano e ;od+ing thepa+ ent initiall+ of $=W and the re aining (=W ithin a period of (= da+s.

3 o or three da+s later, petitioner learned that its offer to pa+ on ter s had ;een fro!en. &lfonso @i ent to

85I on :ul+ $), $()) and tendered the full pa+ ent of 511,=' ,===.== to &l;ano. 3he pa+ ent as refused;ecause &l;ano stated that the authorit+ to sell that particular piece of propert+ in 5asig had ;een ithdra nfro his unit. 3he sa e check as tendered to 85I Vice-5resident Nelson 8ona ho also refused to receivepa+ ent.

&n action for specific perfor ance ith da ages as thereupon filed on &ugust 0', $()) ;+ petitioneragainst 85I. In the course of the trial, 85I infor ed the trial court that it had sold the propert+ under litigationto N8S on :ul+ $2, $()(. 3he co plaint as thus a ended to include N8S.

On :une $=, $(($, the trial court rendered judg ent in the case as follo s"

A?ERE ORE, judg ent is here;+ rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants 8ank of the5hilippine Islands and National 8ook Store, Inc." F

$. Declaring the Deed of Sale of the propert+ covered ;+ 3.C.3. No. 2(1$00 in the na e of the 8ankof the 5hilippine Islands, situated in 8arrio 8agong Ilog, 5asig, 4etro 4anila, in favor of National8ook Store, Inc., null and void/

0. Ordering the Register of Deeds of the 5rovince of Ri!al to cancel the 3ransfer Certificate of 3itlehich a+ have ;een issued in favor of National 8ook Store, Inc. ;+ virtue of the afore entioned

Deed of Sale dated :ul+ $2, $()(/

1. Ordering defendant 85I, upon receipt ;+ it fro plaintiff of the su of 511,=' ,===.==, to e6ecute

a Deed of Sale in favor of plaintiff of the afore entioned propert+ at the price of 5$,===.== pers7uare eter/ in default thereof, the Clerk of this Court is directed to e6ecute the said deed/

2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of 5asig, upon registration of the said deed, hether e6ecuted ;+defendant 85I or the Clerk of Court and pa+ ent of the corresponding fees and charges, to cancelsaid 3.C.3. No. 2(1$00 and to issue, in lieu thereof, another transfer certificate of title in the na e ofplaintiff/

'. Ordering defendants 85I and National 8ook Store, Inc. to pa+, jointl+ and severall+, to the plaintiffthe su s of 5$=,===,===.== as actual and conse7uential da ages and 5$'=,===.== as attorne+9sfees and litigation e6penses, ;oth ith interest at $0W per annum fro date hereof/

. On the cross-clai of defendant ;ank against National 8ook Store, ordering the latter to inde nif+the for er of hatever a ounts 85I shall have paid to the plaintiff ;+ reason hereof/ and

*. Dis issing the counterclai s of the defendants against the plaintiff and National 8ook Store9scross-clai against defendant ;ank.

Costs against defendants.

#pp. 22-2', Bollo .%

Page | 96



&s earlier inti ated, upon the decision ;eing appealed, the Court of &ppeals #8uena G5H, Rasul, and4a;utas, JJ .%, on &ugust $0, $((2, reversed the trial court9s decision and dis issed petitioner9s co plaint for specific perfor ance and da ages.

3he issues raised ;+ the parties revolve around the follo ing four 7uestions"

#$% Aas there a eeting of the inds ;et een petitioner @i ketkai and respondent 85I as to the su;jectatter of the contract and the cause of the o;ligationL

#0% Aere the ;ank officials involved in the transaction authori!ed ;+ 85I to enter into the 7uestionedcontractL

#1% Is there co petent and ad issi;le evidence to support the alleged eeting of the indsL

#2% Aas the sale of the disputed land to the N8S during the pendenc+ of trial effected in good faithL

3here is no dispute in regard to the follo ing" #a% that 85I as trustee of the propert+ of 5hilippine Re nantCo. authori!ed a licensed ;roker, 5edro Revilla, to sell the lot for 5$,===.== per s7uare eter/ #;% that5hilippine Re nants confir ed the authorit+ to sell of Revilla and the price at hich he a+ sell the lot/ #c%that petitioner and Revilla agreed on the for er ;u+ing the propert+/ #d% that 85I &ssistant Vice-5residentRolando V. &ro in allo ed the ;roker and the ;u+er to inspect the propert+/ and #e% that 85I as for all+infor ed a;out the ;roker having procured a ;u+er.

3he controvers+ revolves around the interpretation or the significance of the happenings or events at thispoint.

5etitioner states that the contract to sell and to ;u+ as perfected on :ul+ $$, $()) hen its top officials and;roker Revilla finali!ed the details ith 85I Vice-5residents 4erlin &l;ano and Rolando V. &ro in at the 85Ioffices.

Respondents, ho ever, contend that hat transpired on this date ere part of continuing negotiations to ;u+

the land and not the perfection of the sale. 3he argu ents of respondents center on t o propositions F #$%Vice-5residents &ro in and &l;ano had no authorit+ to ;ind 85I on this particular transaction and #0% thesu;se7uent atte pts of petitioner to pa+ under ter s instead of full pa+ ent in cash constitutes a counter-offer hich negates the e6istence of a perfected contract.

3he alleged lack of authorit+ of the ;ank officials acting in ;ehalf of 85I is not sustained ;+ the record.

&t the start of the transactions, ;roker Revilla ;+ hi self alread+ had full authorit+ to sell the disputed lot.E6hi;it 8 dated :une 01, $()) states, <this ill serve as +our authorit+ to sell on an as is, here is ;asis thepropert+ located at 5asig 8lvd., 8agong Ilog . . . .< Ae agree ith Revilla9s testi on+ that the authorit+ givento hi as to sell and not erel+ to loo) for a buyer , as contended ;+ respondents.

Revilla testified that at the ti e he perfected the agree ent to sell the litigated propert+, he as acting forand in ;ehalf of the 85I as if he ere the 8ank itself. 3his not ithstanding and to fir up the sale of the land,Revilla sa it fit to ;ring 85I officials into the transaction. If 85I could give the authorit+ to sell to a licensed;roker, e see no reason to dou;t the authorit+ to sell of the t o 85I Vice-5residents hose precise jo; inthe 8ank as to anage and ad inister real estate propert+.

Respondent 85I alleges that sales of trust propert+ need the approval of a 3rust Co ittee ade up of top;ank officials. It appears fro the record that this trust co ittee eets rather infre7uentl+ and it does nothave to pass on regular transactions.

Page | 97



Rolando &ro in as 85I &ssistant Vice-5resident and 3rust Officer. ?e directl+ supervised the 85I Real5ropert+ 4anage ent >nit. ?e had ;een in the Real Estate Division since $()' and as the headsupervising officer of real estate atters. &ro in had ;een ith the 85I 3rust Depart ent since $( ) andhad ;een involved in the handling of properties of ;eneficial o ners since $(*' #tsn., Dece ;er 1, $((=, p.'%.

E6hi;it $= of 85I, the e;ruar+ $', $()( letter fro Senior Vice-5resident Ed undo 8arcelon, hilepurporting to infor &ro in of his poor perfor ance, is an ad ission of 85I that &ro in as in charge of

3orrens titles, lease contracts, pro;le s of tenants, insurance policies, install ent receiva;les, anage entfees, 7uitclai s, and other atters involving real estate transactions. ?is i ediate superior, Vice-5resident4erlin &l;ano had ;een ith the Real Estate Division for onl+ one eek ;ut he as present and joined in thediscussions ith petitioner.

3here is nothing to sho that &lfonso @i and &l;ino @i ketkai kne &ro in ;efore the incident. Revilla;rought the ;rothers directl+ to &ro in upon entering the 85I pre ises. &ro in acted in a perfectl+ natural

anner on the transaction ;efore hi ith not the slightest indication that he as acting ultra vires . 3hissho s that 85I held &ro in out to the pu;lic as the officer routinel+ handling real estate transactions and, as3rust Officer, entering into contracts to sell trust properties.

Respondents state and the record sho s that the authorit+ to ;u+ and sell this particular trust propert+ as

later ithdra n fro 3rust Officer &ro in and his entire unit. If &ro in did not have an+ authorit+ to act asalleged, there as no need to ithdra authorit+ hich he never possessed.

5etitioner points to !reola vs . Court of !ppeals #01 SCR& 21 G$((2H% hich cited rudential *an)vs . Court of !ppeals #00 SCR& 1'= G$((1H%, hich in turn relied upon Mc ntosh vs . 3a)ota -rust Co . #'0 ND*'0, 0=2 NA )$), 2= &@R $=0$%, to it"

&ccordingl+ a ;anking corporation is lia;le to innocent third persons here the representation isade in the course of its ;usiness ;+ an agent acting ithin the general scope of his authorit+ even

though, in the particular case, the agent is secretl+ a;using his authorit+ and atte pting toperpetrate a fraud upon his principal or so e other person for his o n ulti ate ;enefit.

#at pp. '0- '1.%

In the present case, the position and title of &ro in alone, not to ention the testi on+ and docu entar+evidence a;out his ork, leave no dou;t that he had full authorit+ to act for 85I in the 7uestionedtransaction. 3here is no allegation of fraud, nor is there the least indication that &ro in as acting for hiso n ulti ate ;enefit. 85I later dis issed &ro in ;ecause it appeared that a top official of the ;ank aspersonall+ interested in the sale of the 5asig propert+ and did not like &ro in9s testi on+. &ro in ascharged ith poor perfor ance ;ut his dis issal as onl+ so eti e after he testified in court. 4ore thant o long +ears after the disputed transaction, he as still &ssistant Vice-5resident of 85I.

3he records sho that the letter of instruction dated :une $2, $()) fro the o ner of 5hilippine Re nants

Co. regarding the sale of the fir 9s propert+ as addressed to &ro in. 3he 5$,===.== figure on the firstpage of ;roker Revilla9s authorit+ to sell as changed to 5$,$==.== ;+ &ro in. 3he price as later ;roughtdo n again to 5$,===.==, also ;+ &ro in. 3he per ission given to petitioner to vie the lot as signed ;+

&ro in and honored ;+ the 85I guards. 3he letter dated :ul+ (, $()) fro ;roker Revilla infor ing 85I thathe had a ;u+er as addressed to &ro in. 3he conference on :ul+ $$, $()) hen the contract as perfected

as ith &ro in and Vice-5resident &l;ano. &l;ano and &ro in ere the ones ho assured petitioner@i ketkai9s officers that ter pa+ ent as possi;le. It as &ro in ho called up 4iguel 8icharra of5hilippine Re nants to state that the 85I rejected pa+ ent on ter s and it as to &ro in that 5hilippineRe nants gave the go signal to proceed ith the cash sale. Ever+thing in the record points to the fullauthorit+ of &ro in to ;ind the ;ank, e6cept for the self-serving e oranda or letters later produced ;+ 85Ithat &ro in as an inefficient and undesira;le officer and ho, in fact, as dis issed after he testified in this

Page | 98



case. 8ut, of course, &ro in9s alleged inefficienc+ is not proof that he as not full+ clothed ith authorit+ to;ind 85I.

Respondents9 second contention is that there as no perfected contract ;ecause petitioner9s re7uest to pa+on ter s constituted a counter-offer and that negotiations ere still in progress at that point.

&sst. Vice-5resident &ro in as su;poenaed as a hostile itness for petitioner during trial. & ong hisstate ents is one to the effect that F

. . . 4r. @i offered to ;u+ the propert+ at 5(==.== per s7uare eter hile 4r. &l;ano counter-offeredto sell the propert+ at 5$,$==.== per s7uare eter ;ut after the usual haggling, %e finally a(reed tosell the propert+ at the price of 5$,===.== per s7uare eter . . .

#tsn, $0-1-(=, p. $*/ E phasis supplied.%

&sked if there as a eeting of the inds ;et een the ;u+er and the ;ank in respect to the price of5$,===.== per s7uare eter, &ro in ans ered"

es, sir, as far as + evaluation there as a eeting of the inds as far as the price is concerned,sir.

#ibid , p. $*.%

3he re7uire ents in the pa+ ent of the purchase price on ter s instead of cash ere suggested ;+ 85IVice-5resident &l;ano. Since the authorit+ given to ;roker Revilla specified cash pa+ ent, the possi;ilit+ ofpa+ing on ter s as referred to the 3rust Co ittee ;ut ith the utual agree ent that <if the proposedpa+ ent on ter s ill not ;e approved ;+ our 3rust Co ittee, @i ketkai should pa+ in cash . . . thea ount as no longer su;ject to the approval or disapproval of the Co ittee, it is onl+ on the ter s.< # ibid ,p. $(%. 3his is incontroverti;l+ esta;lished in the follo ing testi on+ of &ro in"

&. &fter +ou ere a;le to agree on the price of 5$,===.== s7. ., since the letter or authorit+

sa+s the pa+ ent ust ;e in cash ;asis, hat transpired later onL

8. !fter %e have a(reed on the price , the @i ;rothers in7uired on ho to go a;outsu; itting the covering proposal if the+ ill ;e allo ed to pa+ on terms . 3he+ re7uested usto give the a guide on ho to prepare the corresponding letter of proposal. I recall that,upon the re7uest of 4r. &l;ino @i ketkai, e dictated a guide on ho to ord a ritten firoffer that as to ;e su; itted ;+ 4r. @i to the ;ank setting out the ter s of pa+ ent;ut %ith the mutual a(reement that if his proposed payment on terms %ill not be approved by our trust committee, Lim)et)ai should pay the price in cash .

&nd did ;u+er @i ketkai agree to pa+ in cash in case the offer of ter s ill ;e cash#disapproved%.

& Ies, sir .

&t the start, did the+ sho their illingness to pa+ in cashL

& Ies, sir .

ou said that the agree ent on ter s as to ;e su; itted to the trust co ittee forapproval, are you tellin( the Court that %hat %as to be approved by the trust committee %asthe provision on the payment on terms L

Page | 99



& Ies, sir .

$o the amount %as no lon(er subject to the approval or disapproval of the committee, it isonly on the terms L

& Ies, sir .

#tsn, Dec. 1, $((=, pp. $)-$(/ E phasis supplied.%

3he record sho s that if pa+ ent as in cash, either ;roker Revilla or &ro in had full authorit+. 8ut ;ecausepetitioner took advantage of the suggestion of Vice-5resident &l;ano, the atter as sent to higher officials.I ediatel+ upon learning that pa+ ent on ter s as fro!en and or denied, @i ketkai e6ercised his right

ithin the period given to hi and tendered pa+ ent in full. 3he 85I rejected the pa+ ent.

In its Co ent and 4e orandu , respondent N8S cites !n( Iu !suncion vs . Court of !ppeals #01) SCR&=0 G$((2H% to ;olster its case. Contrar+ ise, it ould see that the legal principles found in said case

strengthen and support petitioner9s su; ission that the contract as perfected upon the eeting of theinds of the parties.

3he negotiation or preparation stage started ith the authorit+ given ;+ 5hilippine Re nants to 85I to sellthe lot, follo ed ;+ #a% the authorit+ given ;+ 85I and confir ed ;+ 5hilippine Re nants to ;roker Revilla tosell the propert+, #;% the offer to sell to @i ketkai, #c% the inspection of the propert+ and finall+ #d% thenegotiations ith &ro in and &l;ano at the 85I offices.

3he perfection of the contract took place hen &ro in and &l;ano, acting for 85I, agreed to sell and &lfonso@i ith &l;ino @i ketkai, acting for petitioner @i ketkai, agreed to ;u+ the disputed lot at 5$,===.== pers7uare eter. &side fro this there as the earlier agree ent ;et een petitioner and the authori!ed ;roker.3here as a concurrence of offer and acceptance, on the o;ject, and on the cause thereof.

3he phases that a contract goes through a+ ;e su ari!ed as follo s"

a. preparation, conception or generation, hich is the period of negotiation and ;argaining,ending at the o ent of agree ent of the parties/

;. perfection or ;irth of the contract, hich is the o ent hen the parties co e to agree onthe ter s of the contract/ and

c. consu ation or death, hich is the fulfill ent or perfor ance of the ter s agreed uponin the contract #3o+ota Sha , Inc. vs. Court of &ppeals, B.R. No. $$ '=, 4a+ 01, $(('%.

8ut in ore graphic prose, e turn to !n( Iu !suncion, per :ustice Vitug"

. . . & contract undergoes various stages that include its negotiation or preparation, itsperfection and, finall+, its consu ation. >e(otiation covers the period from the ti e theprospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract to the ti e the contract isconcluded #perfected%. 3he perfection of the contract takes place upon the concurrence of theessential ele ents thereof. & contract hich is consensual as to perfection is so esta;lishedupon a ere eeting of inds, i .e ., the concurrence of offer and acceptance, on the o;jectand on the cause thereof. & contract hich re7uires, in addition to the a;ove, the deliver+ ofthe o;ject of the agree ent, as in a pledge or commodatum , is co onl+ referred to asa real contract. In a solemn contract, co pliance ith certain for alities prescri;ed ;+ la ,such as in a donation of real propert+, is essential in order to ake the act valid, theprescri;ed for ;eing there;+ an essential ele ent thereof. 3he stage of consu ation

Page | 100



;egins hen the parties perfor their respective undertakings under the contract cul inatingin the e6tinguish ent thereof.

>ntil the contract is perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of o;ligation, serve as a;inding juridical relation. In sales, particularl+, to hich the topic for discussion a;out thecase at ;ench ;elongs, the contract is perfected hen a person, called the seller, o;ligateshi self, for a price certain, to deliver and to transfer o nership of a thing or right to another,called the ;u+er, over hich the latter agrees.

#01) SCR& =0/ $$ G$((2H.%

In 0illonco Bealty Company vs . *ormaheco # ' SCR& 1'0 G$(*'H%, ;earing factual antecendents si ilar tothis case, the Court, through :ustice &7uino #later to ;e Chief :ustice%, 7uoting authorities, upheld theperfection of the contract of sale thusl+"

3he contract of sale is perfected at the o ent there is a eeting of inds upon the thinghich is the o;ject of the contract and upon the price. ro that o ent, the parties a+

reciprocall+ de and perfor ance, su;ject to the provisions of the la governing the for ofcontracts. #&rt. $2*', bid .%

666 666 666

Consent is anifested ;+ the eeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and thecause hich are to constitute the contract. 3he offer ust ;e certain and the acceptancea;solute. & 7ualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer #&rt. $1$(, Civil Code%. <&nacceptance a+ ;e e6press or i plied.< #&rt. $10=, Civil Code%.

666 666 666

t is true that an acceptance may contain a request for certain chan(es in the terms of theoffer and yet be a bindin( acceptance . <$o lon( as it is clear that the meanin( of the

acceptance is positively and unequivocally to accept the offer, %hether such request is(ranted or not, a contract is formed .< #Stuart vs. ranklin @ife Ins. Co., $=' ed. 0nd ( ',citing Sec. *(, Ailliston on Contracts%.

666 666 666

. . . the vendor9s change in a phrase of the offer to purchase, hich change does notessentiall+ change the ter s of the offer, does not a ount to a rejection of the offer and thetender or a counter-offer. #Stuart vs. ranklin @ife Ins. Co., supra .%

#at pp. 1 0-1 1/ 1 '-1 .%

In the case at ;ench, the allegation of N8S that there as no concurrence of the offer and acceptance uponthe cause of the contract is ;elied ;+ the testi on+ of the ver+ 85I official ith ho the contract asperfected. &ro in and &l;ano concluded the sale for 85I. 3he fact that the deed of sale still had to ;e signedand notari!ed does not ean that no contract had alread+ ;een perfected. & sale of land is valid regardlessof the for it a+ have ;een entered into #Claudel vs. Court of &ppeals, $(( SCR& $$1, $$( G$(($H%. 3here7uisite for under &rticle $2') of the Civil Code is erel+ for greater efficac+ or convenience and thefailure to co pl+ there ith does not affect the validit+ and ;inding effect of the act ;et een the parties#0itu( , Co pendiu of Civil @a and :urisprudence, $((1 Revised Edition, p. ''0%. If the la re7uires adocu ent or other special for , as in the sale of real propert+, the contracting parties a+ co pel eachother to o;serve that for , once the contract has ;een perfected. 3heir right a+ ;e e6ercisedsi ultaneousl+ ith action upon the contract #&rticle $1'(, Civil Code %.

Page | 101



Regarding the ad issi;ilit+ and co petence of the evidence adduced ;+ petitioner, respondent Court of &ppeals ruled that ;ecause the sale involved real propert+, the statute of frauds is applica;le.

In an+ event, petitioner cites !brenica vs . Gonda #12 5hil. *1( G$($ H% herein it as held that contractsinfringing the Statute of rauds are ratified hen the defense fails to o;ject, or asks 7uestions on cross-e6a ination. 3he succinct ords of :ustice &raullo still ring in judicial cadence"

&s no ti el+ o;jection or protest as ade to the ad ission of the testi on+ of the plaintiff

ith respect to the contract/ and as the otion to strike out said evidence ca e too late/ and,further ore, as the defendants the selves, ;+ the cross-7uestions put ;+ their counsel tothe itnesses in respect to said contract, tacitl+ aived their right to have it stricken out, thatevidence, therefore, cannot ;e considered either inad issi;le or illegal, and court, far frohaving erred in taking it into consideration and ;asing his judg ent thereon, not ithstandingthe fact that it as ordered to ;e stricken out during the trial, erel+ corrected the error heco itted in ordering it to ;e so stricken out and co plied ith the rules of procedureherein;efore cited.

#at p. *2).%

In the instant case, counsel for respondents cross-e6a ined petitioner9s itnesses at length on the contractitself, the purchase price, the tender of cash pa+ ent, the authorit+ of &ro in and Revilla, and other detailsof the litigated contract. >nder the !brenica rule #reiterated in a nu ;er of cases, a ong the 3alosig vs.Vda. de Nie;a 21 SCR& 2*0 G$(*0H%, even assu ing that parol evidence as initiall+ inad issi;le, the sa e;eca e co petent and ad issi;le ;ecause of the cross-e6a ination, hich elicited evidence proving theevidence of a perfected contract. 3he cross-e6a ination on the contract is dee ed a aiver of the defenseof the Statute of rauds # 0itu( , Co pendiu of Civil @a and :urisprudence, $((1 Revised Edition, supra ,p. ' 1%.

3he reason for the rule is that as pointed out in !brenica <if the ans ers of those itnesses ere strickenout, the cross4eAamination could have no object %hatsoever, and if the questions %ere put to the %itnessesand ans%ered by them, they could only be ta)en into account by connectin( them %ith the ans%ers (iven by those %itnesses on direct eAamination < #pp. *2*-*2)%.

4oreover, under &rticle $2=1 of the Civil Code, an e6ception to the unenforcea;ilit+ of contracts pursuant tothe Statute of rauds is the e6istence of a ritten note or e orandu evidencing the contract. 3he

e orandu a+ ;e found in several ritings, not necessaril+ in one docu ent. 3he e orandu ore oranda is are ritten evidence that such a contract as entered into.

Ae cite the findings of the trial court on this atter"

In accordance ith the provisions of &rt. $2=1 of the Civil Code, the e6istence of a ritten contract of the sale is not necessar+ so long as the agree ent to sell real propert+ is evidenced ;+ a rittennote or e orandu , e ;od+ing the essentials of the contract and signed ;+ the part+ charged or

his agent. 3hus, it has ;een held"

3he Statute of rauds, e ;odied in &rticle $2=1 of the Civil Code of the5hilippines, does not require that the contract itself be %ritten . -he plain test of !rticle?78N, ara(raph "6# is clear that a %ritten note or memorandum, embodyin( theessentials of the contract and si(ned by the party char(ed, or his a(ent suffices toma)e the verbal a(reement enforceable, ta)in( it out of the operation of the statute .#E phasis supplied%

666 666 666

Page | 102





3he credi;ilit+ of itnesses is also decisive in this case. 3he trial court directl+ o;served the de eanor andanner of testif+ing of the itnesses hile the Court of &ppeals relied erel+ on the transcript of

stenographic notes.

In this regard, the court of origin had this to sa+"

&part fro eighing the erits of the evidence of the parties, the Court had occasion to o;serve thede eanor of the itnesses the+ presented. 3his is one i portant factor that inclined the Court to

;elieve in the version given ;+ the plaintiff ;ecause its itnesses, including hostile itness Roland V. &ro in, an assistant vice-president of the ;ank, ere straightfor ard, candid and unhesitating ingiving their respective testi onies. >pon the other hand, the itnesses of 85I ere evasive, lessthan candid and hesitant in giving their ans ers to cross e6a ination 7uestions. 4oreover, the

itnesses for 85I and N8S contradicted each other. ernando Sison III insisted that the authorit+ tosell issued to 4r. Revilla as erel+ an evidence ;+ hich a ;roker a+ convince a prospective;u+er that he had authorit+ to offer the propert+ entioned therein for sale and did not ;ind the ;ank.On the contrar+, &lfonso Ma ora, a Senior Vice-5resident of the ;ank, ad itted that the authorit+ tosell issued to 4r. 5edro Revilla, :r. as valid, effective and ;inding upon the ;ank ;eing signed ;+t o class <&< signatories and that the ;ank cannot ;ack out fro its co it ent in the authorit+ tosell to 4r. Revilla.

Ahile &lfredo Ra os of N8S insisted that he did not kno personall+ and as not ac7uainted ithEd undo 8arcelon, the latter categoricall+ ad itted that &lfredo Ra os as his friend and that the+have even discussed in one of the luncheon eetings the atter of the sale of the 5asig propert+ toN8S. Beorge eliciano e phaticall+ said that he as not a consultant of 4r. Ra os nor as heconnected ith hi in an+ anner, ;ut his calling card states that he as a consultant to thechair an of the 5acific Ri E6port and ?oldings Corp. hose chair an is &lfredo Ra os. 3hisdeli;erate act of 4r. eliciano of concealing his ;eing a consultant to 4r. &lfredo Ra os evidentl+

as done ;+ hi to avoid possi;le i plication that he co itted so e underhanded aneuvers inanipulating to have the su;ject propert+ sold to N8S, instead of ;eing sold to the plaintiff.

#pp. 2'2-2'', Original R3C Record.%

On the atter of credi;ilit+ of itnesses here the findings or conclusions of the Court of &ppeals and thetrial court are contrar+ to each other, the pronounce ent of the Court in $errano vs . Court of !ppeals #$(SCR& $=* G$(($H% ;ears stressing"

It is a settled principle of civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court regarding the credi;ilit+of itnesses are entitled to great respect fro the appellate courts ;ecause the trial court had anopportunit+ to o;serve the de eanor of itnesses hile giving testi on+ hich a+ indicate theircandor or lack thereof. Ahile the Supre e Court ordinaril+ does not rule on the issue of credi;ilit+ of

itnesses, that ;eing a 7uestion of fact not properl+ raised in a petition under Rule 2', the Court hasundertaken to do so in e6ceptional situations here, for instance, as here, the trial court and theCourt of &ppeals arrived at divergent conclusions on 7uestions of fact and the credi;ilit+ of

itnesses.

#at p. $$=.%

On the fourth 7uestion of hether or not N8S is an innocent purchaser for value, the record sho s that it isnot. It acted in ;ad faith.

Respondent N8S ignored the notice of lis pendens annotated on the title hen it ;ought the lot. It as theillingness and design of N8S to ;u+ propert+ alread+ sold to another part+ hich led 85I to dishonor the

contract ith @i ketkai.

Page | 104



5etitioner cites several ;adges of fraud indicating that 85I and N8S conspired to prevent petitioner fropa+ing the agreed price and getting possession of the propert+"

$. 3he sale as supposed to ;e done through an authori!ed ;roker, ;ut top officials of 85I personall+ anddirectl+ took over this particular sale hen a close friend ;eca e interested.

0. 85I Senior Vice 5resident Ed undo 8arcelon ad itted that N8S9s 5resident, &lfredo Ra os, as hisfriend/ that the+ had lunch eetings ;efore this incident and discussed N8S9s purchase of the lot. 8arcelon9s

father as a ;usiness associate of Ra os.

1. Beorge eliciano, in ;ehalf of N8S, offered 5' illion and later 5* illion if petitioner ould drop the caseand give up the lot. eliciano ent to petitioner9s office and haggled ith &lfonso @i ;ut failed to convincehi inspite of various and increasing offers.

2. In a place here ;ig and per anent ;uildings a;ound, N8S had constructed onl+ a arehouse arked ;+eas+ porta;ilit+. 3he arehouse is ;olted to its foundations and can easil+ ;e dis antled.

It is the ver+ nature of the deed of a;solute sale ;et een 85I and N8S hich, ho ever, clearl+ negates an+allegation of good faith on the part of the ;u+er. Instead of the vendee insisting that the vendor guarantee itstitle to the land and recogni!e the right of the vendee to proceed against the vendor if the title to the landturns out to ;e defective as hen the land ;elongs to another person, the reverse is found in the deed ofsale ;et een 85I and N8S. &n+ losses hich N8S a+ incur in the event the title turns out to ;e vested inanother person are to ;e ;orne ;+ N8S alone. 85I is e6pressl+ freed under the contract fro an+ recourseof N8S against it should 85I9s title ;e found defective.

N8S, in its repl+ e orandu , does not refute or e6plain the a;ove circu stance s7uarel+. It si pl+ citesthe ;adges of fraud entioned in +ria vs . McMic)in( #0$ 5hil. 021 G$($0H% and argues that the enu erationthere is e6clusive. 3he decision in said case plainl+ states <the follo ing are so e of the circu stancesattending sales hich have ;een deno inated ;+ courts #as% ;adges of fraud.< 3here are innu era;lesituations here fraud is anifested. One enu eration in a $($0 decision cannot possi;l+ cover allindications of fraud fro that ti e up to the present and into the future.

3he Court of &ppeals did not discuss the issue of da ages. 5etitioner cites the fee for filing the a endedco plaint to i plead N8S, sheriffs fees, registration fees, plane fare and hotel e6penses of Ce;u-;asedcounsel. 5etitioner also clai ed, and the trial court a arded, da ages for the profits and opportunit+ lossescaused to petitioner9s ;usiness in the a ount of 5$=,===,===.==.

Ae rule that the profits and the use of the land hich ere denied to petitioner ;ecause of the non-co pliance or interference ith a sole n o;ligation ;+ respondents is so eho ade up ;+ theappreciation in land values in the eanti e.

5rescinding fro the a;ove, e rule that there as a perfected contract ;et een 85I and petitioner@i ketkai/ that the 85I officials ho transacted ith petitioner had full authorit+ to ;ind the ;ank/ that the

evidence supporting the sale is co petent and ad issi;le/ and that the sale of the lot to N8S during the trialof the case as characteri!ed ;+ ;ad faith.

A?ERE ORE, the 7uestioned judg ent of the Court of &ppeals is here;+ REVERSED and SE3 &SIDE.3he :une $=, $(($ judg ent of 8ranch $'$ of the Regional 3rial Court of 3he National Capital :udicialRegion stationed in 5asig, 4etro 4anila is REINS3&3ED e6cept for the a ard of 3en 4illion 5esos#5$=,===,===.==% da ages hich is here;+ DE@E3ED.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 105



# 35 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. L 359 A (*= 1 , 19

VICENTE SOTTO, petitioner, vs. T"E CO!!ISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., respondents.

)ERIA, J. ;

3his is a petition filed ;+ Vicente Sotto for revie of the decision of the Co ission on Elections hichdeclared the respondent E ilio 4. :avier as the true and legiti ate 5resident of the 5opular ront#Su ulong% 5art+. 3he petitioner Vicente Sotto contends in his petition that he is the 5resident of said5art+, and pra+s that said decision ;e revie ed and reversed and that petitioner ;e declared thelegiti ate 5resident of the 5art+.

3he Co ission on Elections after stating the facts and the evidence su; itted ;+ ;oth parties in thiscase, akes, a ong others, the follo ing findings of fact and la in its decision.

#. . . Spanish decision . . .%

8efore proceeding to discuss the 7uestions involved in this case, it is necessar+ to deter ine hetheror not, under section ( of Co on ealth &ct No. '*, e can revie the findings of fact of theCo ission on Elections. Said section ( provides".

&n+ decision, order, or ruling of the Co ission on Elections a+ ;e revie ed ;+ the Supre eCourt ;+ rit of certiorari in accordance ith the Rules of Court or ith such rules as a+ ;epro ulgated ;+ the Supre e Court.

>ndou;tedl+ the la , in using the ords < a+ ;e revie ed ;+ rit of certiorari ,< does not refer to thespecial civil action of certiorari #Rule * of the Rules of Court%, for ;+ this special civil action the

superior court can onl+ revie the acts of the inferior court, ;oard or officer e6ercising judicial functionshen the respondent acted ithout or in e6cess of its or his jurisdiction, in order to annul or odif+ theacts co plained of. 8+ certiorari errors co itted ;+ the respondent can not ;e revie ed andcorrected.

>nder section 0, &rticle VIII of the Constitution of the 5hilippines, as ell as our Rules of Court, final judg ent and decrees of the inferior or lo er courts a+ ;e revie ed ;+ this Court ;+ appeal, rit oferror, or certiorari. 8+ appeal the appellate court revie s all the findings of la and of fact of the court a7uo, as in special proceedings #Rule $=', Rules of Court%. 8+ rit of error the appellate court revie sonl+ the findings of la or of fact of the lo er court assigned in the assign ent of errors of theappellant, as in ordinar+ civil actions #section $(, Rule 2)%. &nd ;+ certiorari the appellate or superior

Court can onl+ revie 7uestions or errors of la decided or co itted ;+ the lo er court, as providedin Rules 21, 22 and 2 of the Rules of court. uestions or findings of fact of the inferior tri;unal, can not;e revie ed on certiorari . <Evidence hich is ade a part of the record can not ;e e6a ined todeter ine hether or not it justifies the finding on hich the decision or judg ent as ade. #See thefollo ing rule.%.

3he general rule is that, in the a;sence of statue or local practice other ise, 7uestions orfindings of fact, in the inferior tri;unal, are not revie a;le on certiorari , and that evidence %hichis made a part of the record cannot be eAamined to deter ine hether or not it justified thefindings on hich the decision or judg ent as ade/ nor ill rulings on 7uestions of fact,

Page | 106



ithin the inferior tri;unal9s jurisdiction, ;e revie ed. #$2 Corpus :uris Secundu , pp. 1$$, 1$0.%#E phasis supplied.% .

In accordance ith the provision of section ( of Co on ealth &ct No. '*, this Court can not,therefore, revie the rulings or findings of fact of the Co ission on Elections.

It is true that &rticle , section 0, of the Constitution of the 5hilippines provides that <decisions, ordersand rulings of the Co ission shall ;e su;ject to revie ;+ the Supre e Court.< &s the revie a+

onl+ ;e effected, as a;ove-stated, ;+ an+ one of the three odes or a+s a;ove entioned, and not ;+the three at the sa e ti e, for the scope of each one is different and at variance ith the others, andthe 5hilippine Congress has provided in section (, Co on ealth &ct No. '*, that decisions, ordersand rulings of the Co ission on Elections a+ ;e revie ed ;+ this Court ;+ rit of certiorari inaccordance ith the Rules of Court, e have to appl+ said provision of &ct No. '*, since itsconstitutionalit+ is not assailed ;+ the parties in this case, and the presu ption is that it is constitutional.It is a ell-esta;lished rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional 7uestion and decide a lato ;e unconstitutional or invalid, unless such 7uestion is raised ;+ the parties, and that hen it is raised,if the record also presents so e other ground upon hich the court a+ rest its judg ent, that course

ill ;e adopted and the constitutional ill ;e left for consideration until a case arises in hich a decisionupon such 7uestion ill ;e unavoida;le #Coole+9s Constitutional @i itations, seventh edition, p. 01$%.

3he contention in the dissenting opinion that < hether the point #unconstitutionalit+% of the provision ofsection (, &ct No. '*, is raised or not ;+ either part+, e can not close our e+es to the constitutionalandate,< is therefore evidentl+ erroneous.

8ut assu ing that this Court a+ revie the findings of facts in the decision of the Co ission onElections, it is o;vious that the findings of fact as ell as of la in the decision of the Co ission aresupported ;+ the evidence in the record and are in accordance ith the la .

3here is no 7uestion that respondent E ilio 4. :avier as designated in Nove ;er, $(2$, ;+ the late:uan Su ulong, 5resident of the 5opular ront #Su ulong% 5art+ as his su;stitute or acting 5residentof the 5art+ during his illness, under section $1 #third paragraph% of the <Rules and Regulations of the

5art+.< &fter the death of :uan Su ulong on :anuar+ (, $(20, not onl+ the e ;ers of the Directorate,;ut also the e ;ers of the 5art+ in the convention of :anuar+ 0*, $(2 , considered and recogni!edE ilio 4. :avier as &cting 5resident of the 5art+ #E6hi;its ', , *, $$, $0, $ and $(-:avier/ and E6hi;it?-Sotto%. 3he right of said respondent to act as such 5resident as onl+ 7uestioned after the eetingof four e ;ers of the Directorate held on e;ruar+ $, $(2 , in hich the said four e ;ers adopted aresolution accepting the alleged resignation of respondent :avier tendered in his letter dated &pril 1=,$(20, and designating petitioner Sotto as &cting 5resident.

3he onl+ 7uestion raised and to ;e deter ined ;+ this Court, is hether or not the action or resolutionof the four e ;ers of the Directorate, @oren!o Su ulong, :ose Ro;les, :r., :ose de @eon and VicenteSotto, accepting the said resignation of respondent :avier and designating or appointing Vicente Sottoas &cting 5resident of the 5art+, as valid.

Ae are of the opinion and so hold that Co ission on Elections9 conclusion to the effect that it is notvalid, and that respondent E ilio 4. :avier continues to ;e up to no the acting 5resident of the5opular ront 5art+ #Su ulong%, is in confor it+ ith the facts and the la of the case, for the follo ingreasons"

irst, ;ecause respondent :avier9s letter dated &pril 1=, $(20 #E6hi;it %, in hich he tendered hisresignation as acting 5resident of the 5art+, as not a real resignation. &ccording to hi , he asco pelled to rite said letter not ;ecause he reall+ anted to resign, ;ut in order to avoid ;eing

olested ;+ the :apanese ho anted to appoint hi to so e govern ent position. 3his e6planation

Page | 107



has not ;een contradicted, and is confir ed ;+ the su;se7uent attitude or acts of the said respondents.If it ill reall+ his intention to resign he ould have insisted on or reiterated his resignation, and notacted as 5resident in all the eetings of the Directorate and the convention of the 5art+ after therestoration of the Co on ealth Bovern ent, as sho n in E6hi;its ', , *, $$, $0, $( #:avier% and ?#Sotto%. 3he fact that the four e ;ers of the Directorate had to dig it up fro the records and papersof the part+, herein it la+ ;uried and forgotten since the +ear $(20, and acted on said letter ofresignation onl+ after the 5art+ convention on :anuar+ 0*, $(2 , in their eeting of e;ruar+ $, $(2 ,

hich as called ;+ the Secretar+ ithout the kno ledge and held ithout the consent of respondent

:avier #E6hi;it $=-:avier%, confir s this conclusion.

Secondl+, ;ecause said eeting of e;ruar+ $, $(2 , as called ;+ the Secretar+ on :anuar+ 1=, of thesa e +ear, ithout the kno ledge and consent of the 5resident E ilio :avier. &ccording to the Rulesand Regulations of the 5art+, <an e6ecutive council, consisting of not less than five nor ore thanfifteen, shall act as a ;od+ of i ediate advisers to the 5resident, hen their opinion is sought ;+ the5resident regarding 7uestions falling ithin his po ers and prerogatives< #section $0%. <3he 5residentand E6ecutive Council shall constitute the Directorate of the 5art+< #section $1%. &nd <the e6ecutivecouncil shall ;e called to a eeting ;+ the 5resident at least once ever+ onth or as often as, in theopinion of the 5resident, the affairs of the countr+ or of the part+ so re7uire< #section $0%. &s the5resident and the E6ecutive Council constitute the Directorate, and there is no provision in said Rules

and Regulations a;out hen the Directorate shall eet and ;+ order of ho the eeting thereof shallhe called, it is o;vious that the eetings of the Directorate shall ;e called and held at the sa e ti eand in the sa e anner as those of the E6ecutive Council. 3hat it as called ithout the kno ledgeand consent of E ilio &. :avier is ad itted ;+ Secretar+ @aude, ho further testified that according tosaid section $0, the call to a eeting ust ;e ade ;+ the 5resident or ;+ his authorit+ #testi on+ of@aude, p. 1*%. Ahether or not the Secretar+ had, in case the 5resident as a;sent or incapacitated,authorit+ to call a Directorate eeting upon the re7uest of so e e ;ers, is i aterial in the presentcase, for acting 5resident :avier as not then a;sent or incapacitated to act as 5resident.

3hirdl+, ;ecause the eeting as called ithout previous notice to all the e ;ers of the Directorate,at least to 5resident :avier. &ccording to section $1 of the Rules and Regulations of the 5art+, <3he

presence of four e ;ers of the Directorate shall ;e sufficient for the adoption of valid easures, if theBeneral Secretar+ or the Secretar+ to the 5resident should certif+ that all the e ;ers ere dul+notified.< It is true that at the foot of the resolution adopted ;+ the petitioner and three other e ;ers of the Directorate in their eeting of e;ruar+ $, $(2 #E6hi;it E-Sotto%, there appears a certificate ofSecretar+ @aude to the effect that all the e ;ers of the Directorate ere notified of the holding of said

eeting/ ;ut such certificate constitutes at ost a presu ption juris tantum of the truth of the factstherein stated. &nd that presu ption as re;utted ;+ the fact affir ed ;+ the respondent :avier in theletter he rote to Nicolas @aude on :anuar+ 1=, $(2 #E6hi;it $=-:avier%, as soon as :avier kne a;outthe proposed eeting on e;ruar+ $, $(2 , through Beroni o Santiago, in hich letter he reproached@aude for having called a eeting ithout the kno ledge and consent of :avier as 5resident and forhaving sent notice thereof only to the fe% members of the Directorate ho solicited therefor, hichi putation @aude did not den+ in his ans er of :anuar+ 1$, $(2 #E6hi;it A-Sotto%. :avier9s letter readsas follo s".

It has co e to + attention that +ou are calling a eeting of the National Directorate of ourpart+ for this co ing rida+, e;ruar+ $, $(2 , at 1 p. . in the Office of &tt+. @oren!o Su ulong,candidate no inated ;+ the Ro6as faction, @i;eral Aing of the Nacionalista 5art+. &s 5residentof the part+, I did not have an+ previous kno ledge of this proposed eeting. No;od+ hasasked e for the holding of the sa e and I have not authori!ed an+one that this eeting ;ecalled. I a , therefore, directing +ou to cancel the notification that +ou have given the fe

e ;ers ho have solicited for this eeting for reasons that are o;vious.

Page | 108



3he re7uire ent of notice to all the e ;ers of the Directorate or 8oard of Directors for the validit+ ofthe acts or resolutions adopted ;+ those present in a special eeting, as that of e;ruar+ $, $(2 , is inconfor it+ ith the follo ing ell-esta;lished rule, hich a+ ;e applied to special eeting ofdirectorates of political parties and other associations".

3he great eight of authorit+, therefore, is to the effect that notice of a special eeting ust ;egiven to ever+ director, unless there is so e e6press provision in the charter or ;+-la s oresta;lished usage to the contrar+, or unless it is i possi;le or i practica;le to do so. E6cept in

these cases, a special eeting held in the a;sence of so e of the directors, and ithout an+notice to the , is illegal, and the action at such a eeting, although ;+ a ajorit+ of thedirectors, is invalid, unless su;se7uentl+ ratified or unless rights have ;een ac7uired ;+innocent third persons, as against ho the corporation ust ;e held estopped. & provisionthat a ajorit+ shall for a ;oard for the transaction of ;usiness does not change the rule. 3hereason for this rule has ;een said to ;e that <each e ;er of a corporate ;od+ has the right toconsultation ith the others, and has the right to ;e heard upon all 7uestions considered, and itis presu ed that, if the a;sent e ;ers had ;een present, the+ ight have dissented, and their argu ents ight have convinced the ajorit+ of the un isdo of their proposed action and thushave produced a different result. If, ho ever, the+ had notice and failed to attend the+ aivedtheir rights, like ise if the+ signed a aiver of notice prior to the eeting.< 4oreover, a director

cannot ;e deprived of his right to ;e notified of a special and unusual atter hich is to ;econsidered and acted upon at a directors9 eeting on the ground that if such notice had ;eengiven and ;+ reason thereof he had ;een present he ould have ;een una;le have induced thedirectors to have refrained fro the action taken. $o it is no eAcuse for failure to (ive notice tosay that the quorum present at the meetin( all voted in favor of the act under consideration, and that the presence at the directors not have notified %ould not have chan(ed theresult. #E phasis supplied/ lecther9s C+clopedia of 5rivate Corporations, Vol. 1, pp. 1='(-1= $.%

ourthl+, the resolution #E6hi;it 8-Sotto% adopted in the eeting of e;ruar+ $$, $(2 , ;+ the votes ofthe sa e four e ;ers, and those cast ;+ @oren!o Su ulong ;+ pro6+ fro :ose &lejandrino and

Si6to @ope!, in hich the resolution adopted in the eeting of e;ruar+ $, $(2 , as ratified, sho sthat the petitioner and his associates i pliedl+ ad it that the previous resolution as of no effectunless so ratified. 8ut said resolution of e;ruar+ $$ could not have the effect of validating the previousone ;ecause the resolution of e;ruar+ $$ as also null and void for the sa e reasons or grounds

ilitating against the validit+ of the resolution of e;ruar+ $, $(2 . Respondent acting 5resident E ilio4. :avier did not cease and as still the acting 5resident of the 5art+ hen the eeting of e;ruar+ $$

as called, and the onl+ e ;ers called to the said eeting, according to E6hi;it N-Sotto, ere@oren!o Su ulong, personall+ and as attorne+ in fact of :ose &lejandrino and Si6to @ope!, :oseRo;les, :r., :ose de @eon and Vicente Sotto, and Beroni o Santiago ho refused to attend allegingthat the eeting as ;eing called in violation of the Rules and Regulations #E6hi;it N-$-Sotto%.

3he 7uestion raised and decided in the present case as to ho is the legiti ate 5resident of the part+,5opular ront #Su ulong%, is aterial and necessar+ for the purpose of deter ining ho for orconstitute the Directorate if the 5opular ront 5art+. &s so e e ;ers of the Directorate have sided

ith the petitioner Vicente Sotto, and the others ith respondent E ilio 4. :avier, the decision on said7uestion carries necessaril+ ith it the deter ination of hich of the t o sets clai ing to constitute theDirectorate is the legiti ate one. 3he Co ission On Elections having declared that respondent E ilio4. :avier is the legiti ate 5resident, the e ;ers of the Directorate ho support hi constitute theDirectorate of the 5art+.

3he calls to eetings and inutes of the eetings of the Directorate signed ;+ the Secretar+ Nicolas@aude, hich are the onl+ relia;le records hich can ;e taken into consideration, for all the records and

Page | 109



papers of the 5art+ ere destro+ed ;+ fire in the house of the late 5resident :uan Su ulong #testi on+of @aude, p. 1%, sho that the e ;ers of the Directorate ere the follo ing" E ilio :avier as acting5resident and Chair an of the Directorate, Beroni o Santiago, Vicente B. Cru!, :ose 5alarca, :osede @eon, :ose &lejandrino, @oren!o Su ulong, Vicente Sotto #E6hi;it -:avier%, Servando de los

&ngeles #E6hi;it )-:avier%, 4a erto 4analo, :ose Ro;les and :osefina 5hodaca #E6hi;it $$-:avier%. Of these eleven e ;ers, :ose de @eon, :ose Ro;les, :r., and @oren!o Su ulong have sided ithpetitioner Vicente Sotto, and :ose &lejandrino and Si6to @ope! #the latter9s na e does not appear as

e ;er of the Directorate in the calls to and inutes of the eetings presented as evidence% gave

their pro6+ to Su ulong, hich as issued ;+ the latter in the eeting of e;ruar+ $$, $(2 . &nd theajorit+ of the e ;ers, Beroni o Santiago, Vicente B. Cru!, :ose 5alarca, Servando de los &ngeles,

4a erto 4analo and :osefina 5hodaca, ho have sided ith respondent E ilio 4. :avier, constitute,therefore, the legiti ate directorate of the 5opular ront 5art+.

&ccording to section $$ of the Rules and Regulations of the 5opular ront 5art+ #Su ulong%, <the5resident shall ;e the supre e representative of the 5art+.< Respondent :avier, ith the Directoratefor ed ;+ the ajorit+ of the e ;ers thereof ho have re ained lo+al to the part+ and have sided

ith hi , is the one ho can act for the part+. 3he individual e ;ers of the Directorate ho refuse torecogni!e the legiti ate 5resident of the 5art+ can not ;e considered as e ;ers of the Directorate ofsaid part+, ;ecause section $1 of the said Rules and Regulations provides that the 5resident and his

E6ecutive Council shall constitute the Directorate of the 5opular ront 5art+. &n+ su;se7uent defectionor resignation of the e ;ers of the legiti ate Directorate of the 5opular ront 5art+ #Su ulong% couldnot affect the constitution of the Directorate, since according to the last paragraph of said section $1,<vacancies occurring in the Directorate shall ;e filled ;+ the re aining e ;ers ho shall elect, ;+unani ous or ajorit+ vote of all the e ;ers, the persons ho are to fill the vacancies.< .

3he contention that, the inorit+ part+ 5opular ront #Su ulong% having split itself in t o groups, oneheaded ;+ Vicente Sotto, and the other ;+ E ilio 4. :avier, <the practical, e7uita;le, just, and la ful

a+ of deciding this case, in + opinion, is to divide e7uall+ the nu ;er of inspectors corresponding tothe Su ulong 5opular ront 5art+ in ever+ cit+ or unicipalit+ here said part+ polled at least ten percentu of the nu ;er of votes cast it the last national election in this anner ...< is untena;le. 8ecause

there is nothing in the record to sho that there as a split or division of the 5opular ront 5art+#Su ulong% or that Vicente Sotto, @oren!o Su ulong, :ose de @eon and :ose Ro;les, :r. have for eda faction of national character. In fact, the evidence sho s that the Directorate of the respondent votedto give @oren!o Su ulong inspectors if he filed his certificate of candidac+ in the na e of the 5opular

ront #E6hi;it $2-:avier%/ and that Su ulong, in a letter he sent to :avier during the pendenc+ of thiscase and e6hi;ited ;+ the latter at the hearing in this Court, asked the latter to appoint hi asrepresentative of the 5art+ ho shall propose election inspectors in his representative district. 3he ostthat can ;e inferred fro the facts of the present case is that there has ;een a tentative secession ofthose e ;ers of the Directorate fro the 5opular ront 5art+ #Su ulong%/ and according to section*0 of the Election Code <no inspector shall ;e granted to an+ ;ranch or faction hich has seceded froits respective part+ ....< .

8esides, assu ing, ar(uendo , that the 5opular ront 5art+ #Su ulong% as split into t o groups orfactions of national character, the provision of section ) of the Co on ealth &ct No. *0', to the effectthat <should the ajorit+ part+ ;e divided into t o factions of national character ith candidates for5resident, Vice-5resident and Senators, each faction shall have one inspector and his su;stitute, etc.<can not ;e invoked ;+ analog+. If Congress had to e6pressl+ so provide in said section ) of &ct No.*0', it as ;ecause ithout such e6press provision, the faction of the Nacionalista 5art+ headed ;+4anuel &. Ro6as ould not have ;een entitled to election inspectors under the Election Code. &nd assaid section ) applies onl+ in case of a division of the ajorit+ into t o factions, it is to ;e presu edthat it as not the intention of Congress to authori!e a division or distri;ution of election inspectors in

Page | 110



case of a split of an+ one of the inorit+ parties, hich are entitled to at ost one inspector. Apressiounius est eAclusio alterius .

Ahether a pact of alliance ith the faction of the Nacionalista 5art+ headed ;+ 4anuel &. Ro6as asvalidl+ adopted in the convention of the 5art+ held on :anuar+ 0*, $(2 , as contended ;+ the petitionerVicente Sotto, or not as contended ;+ the respondent Dr. E ilio 4. :avier, is i aterial and foreign tothe 7uestion su; itted to the Co ission on Elections. 3he latter has no jurisdiction to deter ine that7uestion hich is a atter of polic+ of the 5art+, nor to enforce co pliance ith said resolution #section

1, Co on ealth &ct No. '* in connection ith section 0, &rticle , 5hilippine Constitution%. Suchalliance has nothing to do ith the right to appoint representatives ho shall propose the electioninspectors to hich the part+ is entitled under the la . Even if such an alliance had ;een actuall+effected, said faction of the Nacionalista 5art+ could not have ac7uired the right of the 5opular ront5art+ to have one election inspector in certain representative districts/ though the 5opular ront 5art+

as free to designate persons affiliated to the said faction of the Nacionalista 5art+ as itsrepresentatives ho shall propose the election inspectors to hich it is entitled. &s the Rules andRegulations #E6hi;its &-Sotto, $-:avier% do not authori!e the Directorate to re ove or appoint the5resident of the 5art+, the proper procedure ould have ;een to su; it to said convention of :anuar+0*, $(2 or so e other convention dul+ called for the purpose, the 7uestion hether respondent E ilio4. :avier should continue acting as 5resident or a ne one appointed in his place.

3he state ent in the dispositive part of the decision of the Co ission on Elections to the effect thatthe 5resident E ilio 4. :avier <tiene derecho, por edio de su Directorio,< to appoint the persons hoshall propose the election inspectors to hich the part+ is entitled, is not erroneous. Section ) of &ctNo. *0' provides that the inspector shall ;e reco ended ;+ the political part+. & political part+, as an+other association, acts generall+ through its directorate. 8ut in the present case, section I of the Rulesand Regulations of the 5opular ront 5art+ provides that the 5resident is the supre e representative of the 5art+, and acts as chair an of the Directorate. &lthough the Directorate votes for or selects therepresentatives, the 5resident, as chair an of the Directorate and the supre e representative of the5art+, is the one ho shall appoint the representative selected or approved ;+ the Directorate. 3heCo ission on Elections in stating that the 5resident has the right to appoint <por edio de su

Directorio,< does not ean to sa+ that the 5resident is the onl+ one ho selects and appoints the ,and that the onl+ function of the Directorate is to trans it the selection and appoint ent ade ;+ the5resident to the proper authorities. It eans to sa+ that the 5resident has the right, ith the e6press ori plied approval of the Directorate, to appoint such representatives. 3hat such is the eaning of thatpart of the decision co plained of, is confir ed ;+ the petitioner hi self, ho in paragraph 0 of hispetition alleges <7ue el recurrente es el actual presidente interino del 5artido 5olitico deno inado

rente 5opular Su ulong, +, co o tal es el 7ue tiene derecho, por edio de su directorio, a no ;rarlas personas 7ue han de proponer los inspectores electorales a 7ue tiene derecho dicho partido en laspro6i as elecciones.< .

In vie of all the foregoing, the Co ission on Elections9 decision that the respondent E ilio 4. :avier,and not the petitioner Vicente Sotto, is the legiti ate 5resident of the 5opular ront 5art+ and,therefore, the e ;ers of the directorate ho have sided ith hi constitute the legiti ate Directorateof the 5art+, should ;e and is here;+ affir ed, ith costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Page | 111



# 3 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. 105785 D%-% >%( 11, 1991

T"E SOLICITOR GENERAL, RODOL)O A. !ALA IRA, STE "EN A. !ONSANTO, DAN R.CALDERON, +$ GRANDY N. TRIESTE,petitioners vs. T"E !ETRO OLITAN !ANILA AUT"ORITY

+$ t'% !UNICI ALITY O) !ANDALUYONG, respondents .

CRU4, J.:p

In Metropolitan -raffic Command, Fest -raffic 3istrict vs. Hon. !rsenio M. Gonon(, B.R. No. ($=01,pro ulgated on :ul+ $1, $((=, 1 the Court held that the confiscation of the license plates of otorvehicles for traffic violations as not a ong the sanctions that could ;e i posed ;+ the 4etro 4anilaCo ission under 5D $ =' and as per itted onl+ under the conditions laid do ;+ @OI 21 in thecase of stalled vehicles o;structing the pu;lic streets. It as there also o;served that even theconfiscation of driver9s licenses for traffic violations as not directl+ prescri;ed ;+ the decree nor as itallo ed ;+ the decree to ;e i posed ;+ the Co ission. No otion for reconsideration of that decision

as su; itted. 3he judg ent ;eca e final and e6ecutor+ on &ugust , $((=, and it as dul+ entered in

the 8ook of Entries of :udg ents on :ul+ $1, $((=.

Su;se7uentl+, the follo ing develop ents transpired"

In a letter dated Octo;er $*, $((=, Rodolfo &. 4alapira co plained to the Court that hen he asstopped for an alleged traffic violation, his driver9s license as confiscated ;+ 3raffic Enforcer &ngel delos Re+es in ue!on Cit+.

On Dece ;er $),$((=, the Caloocan-4anila Drivers and Operators &ssociation sent a letter to theCourt asking ho should enforce the decision in the a;ove- entioned case, hether the+ could seekda ages for confiscation of their driver9s licenses, and here the+ should file their co plaints.

&nother letter as received ;+ the Court on e;ruar+ $2, $(($, fro Stephen @. 4onsanto,co plaining against the confiscation of his driver9s license ;+ 3raffic Enforcer &.D. 4artine! for analleged traffic violation in 4andalu+ong.

3his as follo ed ;+ a letter-co plaint filed on 4arch *, $(($, fro Dan R. Calderon, a la +er, also for confiscation of his driver9s license ;+ 5at. R.:. 3ano-an of the 4akati 5olice orce.

Still another co plaint as received ;+ the Court dated &pril 0(, $(($, this ti e fro Brand+ N. 3rieste,another la +er, ho also protested the re oval of his front license plate ;+ E. Ra os of the4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+-3raffic Operations Center and the confiscation of his driver9s license ;+

5at. &.V. E anuel of the 4etropolitan 5olice Co and-Aestern 5olice District.Re7uired to su; it a Co ent on the co plaint against hi , &llan D. 4artine! invoked Ordinance No.*, Series of $()), of 4andalu+ong, authori!ing the confiscation of driver9s licenses and the re oval oflicense plates of otor vehicles for traffic violations.

or his part, &.V. E anuel said he confiscated 3rieste9s driver9s license pursuant to a e orandudated e;ruar+ 0*, $(($, fro the District Co ander of the Aestern 3raffic District of the 5hilippineNational 5olice, authori!ing such sanction under certain conditions.

Page | 112



Director Beneral Cesar 5. Na!areno of the 5hilippine National 5olice assured the Court in his o nCo ent that his office had never authori!ed the re oval of the license plates of illegall+ parkedvehicles and that he had in fact directed full co pliance ith the a;ove- entioned decision in a

e orandu , cop+ of hich he attached, entitled Re oval of 4otor Vehicle @icense 5lates and datede;ruar+ 0), $(($.

5at. R.:. 3ano-an, on the other hand, argued that the Gonon( decision prohi;ited onl+ the re oval oflicense plates and not the confiscation of driver9s licenses.

On 4a+ 02, $((=, the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+ issued Ordinance No. $$, Series of $(($,authori!ing itself <to detach the license plate to and i pound attended unattended a;andoned otorvehicles illegall+ parked or o;structing the flo of traffic in 4etro 4anila.<

On :ul+ 0, $(($, the Court issued the follo ing resolution"

3he attention ofthe Court has ;een called to the enact ent ;+ the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+of Ordinance No. $$, Series of $(($, providing inter alia that"

Section 0. !uthority to 3etach lateE-o% and mpound . 3he 4etropolitan 4anila

&uthorit+, thru the 3raffic Operatio Center, is authori!ed to detach the licenseplate to and i pound attended unattended a;andoned otor vehicles illegall+parked or o;structing the flo of traffic in 4etro 4anila.

3he provision appears to ;e in conflict ith the decision of the Court in the case at ;ar #asreported in $)* SCR& 210%, here it as held that the license plates of otor vehicles a+ not;e detached e6cept onl+ under the conditions prescri;ed in @OI 21. &dditionall+, the Court hasreceived several co plaints against the confiscation ;+ police authorities of driver9s licenses foralleged traffic violations, hich sanction is, according to the said decision, not a ong those that

a+ ;e i posed under 5D $ ='.

3o clarif+ these atters for the proper guidance of la -enforce ent officers and otorists, theCourt resolved to re7uire the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+ and the Solicitor Beneral to su; it,ithin ten #$=% da+s fro notice hereof, separate CO44EN3S on such sanctions in light of the

said decision.

In its Co ent, the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+ defended the said ordinance on the ground that itas adopted pursuant to the po ers conferred upon it ;+ EO 1(0. It particularl+ cited Section 0 thereof

vesting in the Council #its governing ;od+% the responsi;ilit+ a ong others of"

$. or ulation of policies on the deliver+ of ;asic services re7uiring coordination orconsolidation for the &uthorit+/ and

0. 5ro ulgation of resolutions and other issuances of metropolitan %ide application , approval ofa code of ;asic services re7uiring coordination, and eAercise of its rule4ma)in( po%ers .#E phasis supplied%

3he &uthorit+ argued that there as no conflict ;et een the decision and the ordinance ;ecause thelatter as eant to supple ent and not supplant the latter. It stressed that the decision itself said thatthe confiscation of license plates as invalid in the a;sence of a valid la or ordinance, hich as h+Ordinance No. $$ as enacted. 3he &uthorit+ also pointed out that the ordinance could not ;e attackedcollaterall+ ;ut onl+ in a direct action challenging its validit+.

Page | 113



or his part, the Solicitor Beneral e6pressed the vie that the ordinance as null and void ;ecause itrepresented an invalid e6ercise of a delegated legislative po er. 3he fla in the easure as that itviolated e6isting la , specificall+ 5D $ =', hich does not per it, and so i pliedl+ prohi;its, there oval of license plates and the confiscation of driver9s licenses for traffic violations in 4etropolitan4anila. ?e ade no ention, ho ever, of the alleged i propriet+ of e6a ining the said ordinance inthe a;sence of a for al challenge to its validit+.

On Octo;er 02, $(($, the Office of the Solicitor Beneral su; itted a otion for the earl+ resolution of

the 7uestioned sanctions, to re ove once and for all the uncertaint+ of their vahdit+. & si ilar otionas filed ;+ the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+, hich reiterated its contention that the incidents in

7uestion should ;e dis issed ;ecause there as no actual case or controvers+ ;efore the Court.

3he 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+ is correct in invoking the doctrine that the validit+ of a la or act can;e challenged onl+ in a direct action and not collaterall+. 3hat is indeed the settled principle. ?o ever,that rule is not infle6i;le and a+ ;e rela6ed ;+ the Court under e6ceptional circu stances, such asthose in the present controvers+.

3he Solicitor Beneral notes that the practices co plained of have created a great deal of confusiona ong otorists a;out the state of the la on the 7uestioned sanctions. 4ore i portantl+, he aintains

that these sanctions are illegal, ;eing violative of la and the Gonon( decision, and should therefore ;estopped. Ae also note the distur;ing report that one police an ho confiscated a driver9s licensedis issed the Gonon( decision as < rong< and said the police ould not stop their <ha;it< unless the+received orders <fro the top.< Regretta;l+, not one of the co plainants has filed a for al challenge tothe ordinances, including 4onsanto and 3rieste, ho are la +ers and could have ;een ore assertiveof their rights.

Biven these considerations, the Court feels it ust address the pro;le s7uarel+ presented to it anddecide it as categoricall+ rather than dis iss the co plaints on the ;asis of the technical o;jectionraised and thus, through its inaction, allo the to fester.

3he step e no take is not ithout legal authorit+ or judicial precedent. >n7uestiona;l+, the Court hasthe po er to suspend procedural rules in the e6ercise of its inherent po er, as e6pressl+ recogni!ed inthe Constitution, to pro ulgate rules concerning <pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.< 5 Inproper cases, procedural rules a+ ;e rela6ed or suspended in the interest of su;stantial justice, hichother ise a+ ;e iscarried ;ecause of a rigid and for alistic adherence to such rules.

3he Court has taken this step in a nu ;er of such cases, nota;l+ !raneta vs. 3in(lasan , 3 here:ustice 3uason justified the deviation on the ground that <the transcendental i portance to the pu;lic of these cases de ands that the+ ;e settled pro ptl+ and definitel+, ;rushing aside, if e ust,technicalities of procedure.<

Ae have ade si ilar rulings in other cases, thus"

8e it re e ;ered that rules of procedure are ;ut ere tools designed to facilitate theattain ent ofjustice. 3heir strict and rigid application, hich ould result in technicalities thattend to frustrate rather than pro ote su;stantial justice, ust al a+s ;e avoided. #&!nar III vs.8ernad, B.R. No. )$$(=, 4a+ (, $()), $ $ SCR& 0* .% 3i e and again, this Court hassuspended its o n rules and e6cepted a particular case fro their operation henever thehigher interests of justice so re7uire. In the instant petition, e forego a length+ dis7uisition ofthe proper procedure that should have ;een taken ;+ the parties involved and proceed directl+to the erits of the case. #5ic!on vs. Court of &ppeals, $(= SCR& 1$%.

Page | 114



3hree of the cases ere consolidated for argu ent and the other t o ere argued separatel+on other dates. Inas uch as all of the present the sa e funda ental 7uestion hich, in ourvie , is decisive, the+ ill ;e disposed of jointl+. or the sa e reason e ill pass up theo;jection to the personalit+ or sufficienc+ of interest of the petitioners in case B.R. No. @-1='2and case B.R. No. @-1=' and the 7uestion hether prohi;ition lies in cases B.R. Nos. @-0=22and @0*' . No practical ;enefit can ;e gained fro a discussion of these procedural atters,since the decision in the cases herein the petitioners9cause of action or the propriet+ of theprocedure follo ed is not in dispute, ill ;e controlling authorit+ on the others. &;ove all, the

transcendental i portance to the pu;lic of these cases de ands that the+ ;e settled pro ptl+and definitel+, ;rushing aside, if e ust, technicalities of procedure. #&velino vs. Cuenco, B.R.No. @-0)0$ cited in &raneta vs. Dinglasan, )2 5hil. 1 ).%

&ccordingl+, the Court ill consider the otion to resolve filed ;+ the Solicitor Beneral a petition forprohi;ition against the enforce ent of Ordinance No. $$, Series of $(($, of the 4etropohtan 4anila

&uthorit+, and Ordinance No. *, Series of $()), of the 4unicipalit+ of 4andalu+ong. Stephen &.4onsanto, Rodolfo &. 4alapira, Dan R. Calderon, and Brand+ N. 3rieste are considered co-petitionersand the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+ and the 4unicipalit+ of 4andalu+ong are here;+ i pleaded asrespondents. 3his petition is docketed as B.R. No. $=0*)0. 3he co ents alread+ su; itted are dul+noted and shall ;e taken into account ;+ the Court in the resolution of the su;stantive issues raised.

It is stressed that this action is not intended to disparage procedural rules, hich the Court hasrecogni!ed often enough as necessar+ to the orderl+ ad inistration of justice. If e are rela6ing the inthis particular case, it is ;ecause of the failure of the proper parties to file the appropriate proceedingagainst the acts co plained of, and the necessit+ of resolving, in the interest of the pu;lic, thei portant su;stantive issues raised.

No to the erits.

3he 4etro 4anila &uthorit+ sustains Ordinance No. $$, Series of $(($, under the specific authorit+conferred upon it ;+ EO 1(0, hile Ordinance No. *, Series of $()), is justified on the ;asis of the

Beneral Aelfare Clause e ;odied in the @ocal Bovern ent Code. It is not disputed that ;otheasures ere enacted to pro ote the co fort and convenience of the pu;lic and to alleviate theorsening traffic pro;le s in 4etropolitan 4anila due in large part to violations of traffic rules.

3he Court holds that there is a valid delegation of legislative po er to pro ulgate such easures, itappearing that the re7uisites of such delegation are present. 3hese re7uisites are. $% the co pletenessof the statute aking the delegation/ and 0% the presence of a sufficient standard. 6

>nder the first re7uire ent, the statute ust leave the legislature co plete in all its ter s andprovisions such that all the delegate ill have to do hen the statute reaches it is to i ple ent it. Ahatonl+ can ;e delegated is not the discretion to deter ine hat the la shall ;e ;ut the discretion todeter ine ho the la shall ;e enforced. 3his has ;een done in the case at ;ar.

&s a second re7uire ent, the enforce ent a+ ;e effected onl+ in accordance ith a sufficientstandard, the function of hich is to ap out the ;oundaries of the delegate9s authorit+ and thus<prevent the delegation fro running riot.< 3his re7uire ent has also ;een et. It is settled that the<convenience and elfare< of the pu;lic, particularl+ the otorists and passengers in the case at ;ar, isan accepta;le sufficient standard to deli it the delegate9s authorit+.

8ut the pro;le ;efore us is not the validit+ of the dele(ation of legislative po er. 3he 7uestion eust resolve is the validit+ of the eAercise of such delegated po er.

Page | 115



3he easures in 7uestion are enact ents of local govern ents acting onl+ as agents of the nationallegislature. Necessaril+, the acts of these agents ust reflect and confor to the ill of their principal.3o test the validit+ of such acts in the specific case no ;efore us, e appl+ the particular re7uisites ofa valid ordinance as laid do n ;+ the accepted principles governing unicipal corporations.

&ccording to Elliot, a unicipal ordinance, to ;e valid" $% ust not contravene the Constitution or an+statute/ 0% ust not ;e unfair or oppressive/ 1% ust not ;e partial or discri inator+/ 2% ust not prohi;it;ut a+ regulate trade/ '% ust not ;e unreasona;le/ and % ust ;e general and consistent ith pu;lic

polic+. 7

& careful stud+ of the Gonon( decision ill sho that the easures under consideration do not passthe first criterion ;ecause the+ do not confor to e6isting la . 3he pertinent la is 5D $ ='. 5D $ ='does not allo either the re oval of license plates or the confiscation of driver9s licenses for trafficviolations co itted in 4etropolitan 4anila. 3here is nothing in the follo ing provisions of the decreeauthori!ing the 4etropolitan 4anila Co ission #and no the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+% to i posesuch sanctions"

Section $. 3he 4etropolitan 4anila Co ission shall have the po er to i pose fines andother ise discipline drivers and operators of otor vehicles for violations of traffic la s,

ordinances, rules and regulations in 4etropolitan 4anila in such amounts and under such penalties as are herein prescribed . or this purpose, the po ers of the @and 3ransportationCo ission and the 8oard of 3ransportation under e6isting la s over such violations andpunish ent thereof are here;+ transferred to the 4etropolitan 4anila Co ission. Ahen theproper penalt+ to ;e i posed is suspension or revocation of driver s license or certificate of

public convenience , the 4etropolitan 4anila Co ission or its representatives shall suspend or revoke such license or certificate. 3he suspended or revoked driver9s license or the report ofsuspension or revocation of the certificate of pu;lic convenience shall ;e sent to the @and3ransportation Co ission or the 8oard of 3ransportation, as the case a+ ;e, for their recordsupdate.

666 666 666

Section 1.X Violations of traffic la s, ordinances, rules and regulations, co itted ithin at elve- onth period, reckoned fro the date of ;irth of the licensee, shall su;ject the violator tograduated fines as follo s" 5$=.== for the first offense, 50=.== for the and offense, 5'=.== forthe third offense, a one4year suspension of driver s license for the fourth offense, anda revocation of the driver s license for the fifth offense" 5rovided, 3hat the 4etropolitan 4anilaCo ission a+ i pose higher penalties as it a+ dee proper for violations of its ordinancesprohi;iting or regulating the use of certain pu;lic roads, streets and thoroughfares in4etropolitan 4anila.

666 666 666

Section '. In case of traffic violations, the driver s license shall not be confiscated ;ut the erringdriver shall ;e i ediatel+ issued a traffic citation ticket prescri;ed ;+ the 4etropolitan 4anilaCo ission hich shall state the violation co itted, the a ount of fine i posed for theviolation and an advice that he can ake pa+ ent to the cit+ or unicipal treasurer here theviolation as co itted or to the 5hilippine National 8ank or 5hilippine Veterans 8ank or their;ranches ithin seven da+s fro the date of issuance of the citation ticket.

If the offender fails to pa+ the fine i posed ithin the period herein prescri;ed, the 4etropolitan4anila Co ission or the la -enforce ent agenc+ concerned shall endorse the case to the

Page | 116



proper fiscal for appropriate proceedings preparator+ to the filing of the case ith the co petenttraffic court, cit+ or unicipal court.

If at the ti e a driver rene s his driver9s license and records sho that he has an unpaid fine,his driver9s license shall not ;e rene ed until he has paid the fine and correspondingsurcharges.

666 666 666

Section ). Insofar as the 4etropolitan 4anila area is concerned, all la s, decrees, orders,ordinances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent here ith are here;+ repealed or

odified accordingl+. #E phasis supplied%.

In fact, the a;ove provisions prohibit the i position of such sanctions in 4etropolitan 4anila. 3heCo ission as allo ed to <i pose fines and other ise discipline< traffic violators onl+ <in sucha ounts and under such penalties as are herein prescri;ed,< that is, ;+ the decree itself. No here isthe re oval of license plates directl+ i posed ;+ the decree or at least allo ed ;+ it to ;e i posed ;+the Co ission. Nota;l+, Section ' thereof e6pressl+ provides that <in case of traffic violations, thedriver9s license shall not ;e confiscated.< 3hese restrictions are applica;le to the 4etropolitan 4anila

&uthorit+ and all other local political su;divisions co prising 4etropolitan 4anila, including the4unicipalit+ of 4andalu+ong.

3he re7uire ent that the unicipal enact ent ust not violate e6isting la e6plains itself. @ocalpolitical su;divisions are a;le to legislate onl+ ;+ virtue of a valid delegation of legislative po er frothe national legislature #e6cept onl+ that the po er to create their o n sources of revenue and to lev+ta6es is conferred ;+ the Constitution itself%. 8 3he+ are ere agents vested ith hat is called thepo er of su;ordinate legislation. &s delegates of the Congress, the local govern ent unit cannotcontravene ;ut ust o;e+ at all ti es the ill of their principal. In the case ;efore us, the enact ents in7uestion, hich are erel+ local in origin, cannot prevail against the decree, hich has the force andeffect of a statute.

3he self-serving language of Section 0 of the challenged ordinance is orth noting. Curiousl+, it is theeasure itself, hich as enacted ;+ the 4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+, that authori!es the

4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+ to i pose the 7uestioned sanction.

In 0illacorta vs, *emardo , 9 the Court nullified an ordinance enacted ;+ the 4unicipal 8oard ofDagupan Cit+ for ;eing violative of the @and Registration &ct. 3he decision held in part"

In declaring the said ordinance null and void, the court a quo declared"

ro the a;ove-recited re7uire ents, there is no sho ing that ould justif+ the

enact ent of the 7uestioned ordinance. Section $ of said ordinance clearl+conflicts ith Section 22 of &ct 2( , ;ecause the latter la does not re7uiresu;division plans to ;e su; itted to the Cit+ Engineer ;efore the sa e issu; itted for approval to and verification ;+ the Beneral @and Registration Officeor ;+ the Director of @ands as provided for in Section ') of said &ct. Section 0 ofthe sa e ordinance also contravenes the provisions of Section 22 of &ct 2( , thelatter ;eing silent on a service fee of 5=.=1 per s7uare eter of ever+ lot su;jectof such su;division application/ Section 1 of the ordinance in 7uestion alsoconflicts ith Section 22 of &ct 2( , ;ecause the latter la does not ention of acertification to ;e ade ;+ the Cit+ Engineer ;efore the Register of Deeds allo sregistration of the su;division plan/ and the last section of said ordinance i pose

Page | 117



a penalt+ for its violation, hich Section 22 of &ct 2( does not i pose. In otherords, Ordinance 00 of the Cit+ of Dagupan i poses upon a su;division o ner

additional conditions.

666 666 666

3he Court takes note of the lauda;le purpose of the ordinance in ;ringing to ahalt the surreptitious registration of lands ;elonging to the govern ent. 8ut as

alread+ inti ated a;ove, the po ers of the ;oard in enacting such a lauda;leordinance cannot ;e held valid hen it shall i pede the e6ercise of rightsgranted in a general la and or ake a general la su;ordinated to a localordinance.

Ae affir .

3o sustain the ordinance ould ;e to open the floodgates to other ordinances a ending and soviolating national la s in the guise of i ple enting the . 3hus, ordinances could ;e passedi posing additional re7uire ents for the issuance of arriage licenses, to prevent ;iga +/ theregistration of vehicles, to ini i!e carnapping/ the e6ecution of contracts, to forestall fraud/ the

validation of parts, to deter i posture/ the e6ercise of freedo of speech, to reduce disorder/and so on. 3he list is endless, ;ut the eans, even if the end ;e valid, ould ;e ultra vires .

3he easures in 7uestion do not erel+ add to the re7uire ent of 5D $ =' ;ut, orse, i posesanctions the decree does not allo and in fact actuall+ prohi;its. In so doing, the ordinances disregardand violate and in effect partiall+ repeal the la .

Ae here e phasi!e the ruling in the Gonon( case that 5D $ =' applies onl+ to the 4etropolitan 4anilaarea. It is an e6ception to the general authorit+ conferred ;+ R.&. No. 2$1 on the Co issioner of @and3ransportation to punish violations of traffic rules else here in the countr+ ith the sanction thereinprescri;ed, including those here 7uestioned.

3he Court agrees that the challenged ordinances ere enacted ith the ;est of otives and shares theconcern of the rest of the pu;lic for the effective reduction of traffic pro;le s in 4etropolitan 4anilathrough the i position and enforce ent of ore deterrent penalties upon traffic violators. &t the sa eti e, it ust also reiterate the pu;lic isgivings over the a;uses that a+ attend the enforce ent ofsuch sanction in eluding the illicit practices descri;ed in detail in the Gonon( decision. &t an+ rate, thefact is that there is no statutor+ authorit+ for F and indeed there is a statutor+ prohi;ition against F thei position of such penalties in the 4etropolitan 4anila area. ?ence, regardless of their erits, the+cannot ;e i pose ;+ the challenged enact ents ;+ virtue onl+ of the delegated legislative po ers.

It is for Congress to deter ine, in the e6ercise of its o n discretion, hether or not to i pose suchsanctions, either directl+ through a statute or ;+ si pl+ delegating authorit+ to this effect to the localgovern ents in 4etropolitan 4anila. Aithout such action, 5D $ =' re ains effective and continuesprohi;it the confiscation of license plates of otor vehicles #e6cept under the conditions prescri;ed in@OI 21% and of driver licenses as ell for traffic violations in 4etropolitan 4anila.

A?ERE ORE, judg ent is here;+ rendered"

#$% declaring Ordinance No.$$, Seriesof l(($,of the4etropolitan 4anila &uthorit+ and Ordinance No. *,Series of $()) of the 4unicipalit+ of 4andalu+ong, N>@@ and VOID/ and

Page | 118



#0% enjoining all la enforce ent authorities in 4etropolitan 4anila fro re oving the license plates ofotor vehicles #e6cept hen authori!ed under @OI 21% and confiscating driver licenses for traffic

violations ithin the said area.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 119



# 38 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. L 53157 A (*= 59, 1971

)RANCISCO SERRANO DE AGBAYANI,plaintiff-appellee, vs. "ILI INE NATIONAL BANQ +$T"E ROVINCIAL S"ERI)) O) ANGASINAN, $%&%+$ +ts, "ILI INE NATIONALBANQ,defendant-appellant.

)ERNANDO, J.:

& correct appreciation of the controlling doctrine as to the effect, if an+, to ;e attached to a statutesu;se7uentl+ adjudged invalid, is decisive of this appeal fro a lo er court decision. 5laintiff ranciscoSerrano de &g;a+ani, no appellee, as a;le to o;tain a favora;le judg ent in her suit againstdefendant, no appellant 5hilippine National 8ank, per anentl+ enjoining the other defendant, the5rovincial Sheriff of 5angasinan, fro proceeding ith an e6tra-judicial foreclosure sale of land;elonging to plaintiff ortgaged to appellant 8ank to secure a loan declared no longer enforcea;le, theprescriptive period having lapsed. 3here as thus a failure to sustain the defense raised ;+ appellantthat if the oratoriu under an E6ecutive Order and later an &ct su;se7uentl+ found unconstitutional

ere to ;e counted in the co putation, then the right to foreclose the ortgage as still su;sisting. Inarriving at such a conclusion, the lo er court anifested a tenacious adherence to the infle6i;le viethat an unconstitutional act is not a la , creating no rights and i posing no duties, and thus asinoperative as if it had never ;een. It as o;livious to the force of the principle adopted ;+ this Courtthat hile a statute9s repugnanc+ to the funda ental la deprives it of its character as a juridical nor ,its having ;een operative prior to its ;eing nullified is a fact that is not devoid of legal conse7uences. &s

ill hereafter ;e e6plained, such a failing of the lo er court resulted in an erroneous decision. Ae findfor appellant 5hilippine National 8ank, and e reverse.

3here is no dispute as to the facts. 5laintiff o;tained the loan in the a ount of 52'=.== fro defendant8ank dated :ul+ $(, $(1(, aturing on :ul+ $(, $(22, secured ;+ real estate ortgage dul+ registered

covering propert+ descri;ed in 3.C.3. No. $$0*' of the province of 5angasinan. &s of Nove ;er 0*,$('(, the ;alance due on said loan as in the a ount of 5$,0(2.==. &s earl+ as :ul+ $1 of the sa e+ear, defendant instituted e6tra-judicial foreclosure proceedings in the office of defendant 5rovincialSheriff of 5angasinan for the recover+ of the ;alance of the loan re aining unpaid. 5laintiff countered

ith his suit against ;oth defendants on &ugust $=, $('(, her ain allegation ;eing that the ortgagesought to ;e foreclosed had long prescri;ed, fifteen +ears having elapsed fro the date of aturit+,:ul+ $(, $(22. She sought and as a;le to o;tain a rit of preli inar+ injunction against defendant5rovincial Sheriff, hich as ade per anent in the decision no on appeal. Defendant 8ank in itsans er pra+ed for the dis issal of the suit as even on plaintiff9s o n theor+ the defense of prescription

ould not ;e availa;le if the period fro 4arch $=, $(2', hen E6ecutive Order No. 10 1 as issued, to:ul+ 0 , $(2), hen the su;se7uent legislative act 5 e6tending the period of oratoriu as declaredinvalid, ere to ;e deducted fro the co putation of the ti e during hich the ;ank took no legal stepsfor the recover+ of the loan. &s noted, the lo er court did not find such contention persuasive anddecided the suit in favor of plaintiff.

?ence this appeal, hich, as ade clear at the outset, possesses erit, there ;eing a failure on thepart of the lo er court to adhere to the applica;le constitutional doctrine as to the effect to ;e given to astatute su;se7uentl+ declared invalid.

$. 3he decision no on appeal reflects the orthodo6 vie that an unconstitutional act, for that atter ane6ecutive order or a unicipal ordinance like ise suffering fro that infir it+, cannot ;e the source ofan+ legal rights or duties. Nor can it justif+ an+ official act taken under it. Its repugnanc+ to the

Page | 120



funda ental la once judiciall+ declared results in its ;eing to all intents and purposes a ere scrap ofpaper. &s the ne Civil Code puts it" <Ahen the courts declare a la to ;e inconsistent ith theConstitution, the for er shall ;e void and the latter shall govern. &d inistrative or e6ecutive acts,orders and regulations shall ;e valid onl+ hen the+ are not contrar+ to the la s of the Constitution. 3 Itis understanda;le h+ it should ;e so, the Constitution ;eing supre e and para ount. &n+ legislativeor e6ecutive act contrar+ to its ter s cannot survive.

Such a vie has support in logic and possesses the erit of si plicit+. It a+ not ho ever ;e

sufficientl+ realistic. It does not ad it of dou;t that prior to the declaration of nullit+ such challengedlegislative or e6ecutive act ust have ;een in force and had to ;e co plied ith. 3his is so as untilafter the judiciar+, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidit+, it is entitled to o;edience and respect.5arties a+ have acted under it and a+ have changed their positions. Ahat could ;e ore fitting thanthat in a su;se7uent litigation regard ;e had to hat has ;een done hile such legislative or e6ecutiveact as in operation and presu ed to ;e valid in all respects. It is no accepted as a doctrine that prior to its ;eing nullified, its e6istence as a fact ust ;e reckoned ith. 3his is erel+ to reflect a arenessthat precisel+ ;ecause the judiciar+ is the govern ental organ hich has the final sa+ on hether or nota legislative or e6ecutive easure is valid, a period of ti e a+ have elapsed ;efore it can e6ercise thepo er of judicial revie that a+ lead to a declaration of nullit+. It ould ;e to deprive the la of its7ualit+ of fairness and justice then, if there ;e no recognition of hat had transpired prior to such

adjudication.

In the language of an & erican Supre e Court decision" <3he actual e6istence of a statute, prior tosuch a deter ination Gof unconstitutionalit+H, is an operative fact and a+ have conse7uences hichcannot justl+ ;e ignored. 3he past cannot al a+s ;e erased ;+ a ne judicial declaration. 3he effect ofthe su;se7uent ruling as to invalidit+ a+ have to ;e considered in various aspects, ith respect toparticular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official.< 3hislanguage has ;een 7uoted ith approval in a resolution in !raneta v. Hill 6 and the decision in ManilaMotor Co., nc. v. 5lores . &n even ore recent instance is the opinion of :ustice Maldivar speaking forthe Court in 5ernandez v. Cuerva and Co. 7

0. Such an approach all the ore co ends itself henever police po er legislation intended topro ote pu;lic elfare ;ut adversel+ affecting propert+ rights is involved. Ahile su;ject to ;e assailedon due process, e7ual protection and non-i pair ent grounds, all that is re7uired to avoid thecorrosion of invalidit+ is that the rational ;asis or reasona;leness test is satisfied. 3he legislature on the

hole is not likel+ to allo an enact ent suffering, to paraphrase Cardo!o, fro the infir it+ of outrunning the ;ounds of reason and resulting in sheer oppression. It a+ ;e of course that if challenged,an adverse judg ent could ;e the result, as its running counter to the Constitution could still ;e sho n.In the ean hile though, in the nor al course of things, it has ;een acted upon ;+ the pu;lic andaccepted as valid. 3o ignore such a fact ould indeed ;e the fruitful parent of injustice. 4oreover, as itsconstitutionalit+ is conditioned on its ;eing fair or reasona;le, hich in turn is dependent on the actualsituation, never static ;ut su;ject to change, a easure valid hen enacted a+ su;se7uentl+, due toaltered circu stances, ;e stricken do n.

3hat is precisel+ hat happened in connection ith Repu;lic &ct No. 120, the oratoriu legislation,hich continued E6ecutive Order No. 10, issued ;+ the then 5resident Os ePa, suspending the

enforce ent of pa+ ent of all de;ts and other onetar+ o;ligations pa+a;le ;+ ar sufferers. So it ase6plicitl+ held in Butter v. steban 8 here such enact ent as considered in $('1 <unreasona;le andoppressive, and should not ;e prolonged a inute longer, and, therefore, the sa e should ;e declarednull and void and ithout effect.< 9 &t the ti e of the issuance of the a;ove E6ecutive Order in $(2' andof the passage of such &ct in $(2), there as a factual justification for the oratoriu . 3he 5hilippines

as confronted ith an e ergenc+ of i pressive agnitude at the ti e of her li;eration fro the:apanese ilitar+ forces in $(2'. 8usiness as at a standstill. ?er econo + la+ prostrate. 4easures,

Page | 121



radical easures, ere then devised to tide her over until so e se ;lance of nor alc+ could ;erestored and an i prove ent in her econo + noted. No onder then that the suspension ofenforce ent of pa+ ent of the o;ligations then e6isting as declared first ;+ e6ecutive order and then;+ legislation. 3he Supre e Court as right therefore in rejecting the contention that on its face, the4oratoriu @a as unconstitutional, a ounting as it did to the i pair ent of the o;ligation ofcontracts. Considering the circu stances confronting the legiti ate govern ent upon its return to the5hilippines, so e such re edial device as needed and ;adl+ so. &n un+ielding insistence then on therights to propert+ on the part of the creditors as not likel+ to eet ith judicial s+ path+. 3i e passed

ho ever, and conditions did change.

Ahen the legislation as ;efore this Court in $('1, the 7uestion ;efore it as its satisf+ing the rational;asis test, not as of the ti e of its enact ent ;ut as of such date. Clearl+, if then it ere foundunreasona;le, the right to non-i pair ent of contractual o;ligations ust prevail over the assertion ofco unit+ po er to re ed+ an e6isting evil. 3he Supre e Court as convinced that such indeed asthe case. &s stated in the opinion of :ustice 8autista &ngelo" <8ut e should not lose sight of the factthat these o;ligations had ;een pending since $(2' as a result of the issuance of E6ecutive OrdersNos. 0' and 10 and at present their enforce ent is still inhi;ited ;ecause of the enact ent of Repu;lic

&ct No. 120 and ould continue to ;e unenforcea;le during the eight-+ear period granted to pre arde;tors to afford the an opportunit+ to reha;ilitate the selves, hich in plain language eans that

the creditors ould have to o;serve a vigil of at least t elve #$0% +ears ;efore the+ could affect ali7uidation of their invest ent dating as far ;ack as $(2$. 3his period see s to us unreasona;le, if notoppressive. Ahile the purpose of Congress is plausi;le, and should ;e co ended, the relief accorded

orks injustice to creditors ho are practicall+ left at the erc+ of the de;tors. 3heir hope to effectcollection ;eco es e6tre el+ re ote, ore so if the credits are unsecured. &nd the injustice is orepatent hen, under the la the de;tor is not even re7uired to pa+ interest during the operation of therelief, unlike si ilar statutes in the >nited States. 10 3he conclusion to hich the foregoingconsiderations inevita;l+ led as that as of the ti e of adjudication, it as apparent that Repu;lic &ctNo. 120 could not survive the test of validit+. E6ecutive Order No. 10 should like ise ;e nullified. 3hat;efore the decision the+ ere not constitutionall+ infir as ad itted e6pressl+. 3here is all the orereason then to +ield assent to the no prevailing principle that the e6istence of a statute or e6ecutive

order prior to its ;eing adjudged void is an operative fact to hich legal conse7uences are attached.1. 5recisel+ though ;ecause of the judicial recognition that oratoriu as a valid govern entalresponse to the plight of the de;tors ho ere ar sufferers, this Court has ade clear its vie in aseries of cases i pressive in their nu ;er and unani it+ that during the eight-+ear period thatE6ecutive Order No. 10 and Repu;lic &ct No. 120 ere in force, prescription did not run. So it has ;eenheld fro 3ay v. Court of 5irst

nstance , 11 decided in $('2, to Bepublic v. Hernaez , 15 handed do n onl+ last +ear. Ahat is deplora;leis that as of the ti e of the lo er court decision on :anuar+ 0*, $( =, at least eight decisions had leftno dou;t as to the prescriptive period ;eing tolled in the ean hile prior to such adjudication ofinvalidit+. 13 Speaking of the opposite vie entertained ;+ the lo er court, the present Chief :ustice,in Liboro v. 5inance and Minin( nvestments Corp . 1 has categori!ed it as having ;een <e6plicitl+ andconsistentl+ rejected ;+ this Court.< 16

3he error of the lo er court in sustaining plaintiff9s suit is thus anifest. ro :ul+ $(, $(22, hen herloan atured, to :ul+ $1, $('(, hen e6tra-judicial foreclosure proceedings ere started ;+ appellant8ank, the ti e consu ed is si6 da+s short of fifteen +ears. 3he prescriptive period as tolled ho ever,fro 4arch $=, $(2', the effectivit+ of E6ecutive Order No. 10, to 4a+ $), $('1, hen the decisionof Butter v. steban as pro ulgated, covering eight +ears, t o onths and eight da+s. O;viousl+then, hen resort as had e6tra-judiciall+ to the foreclosure of the ortgage o;ligation, there as ti eto spare ;efore prescription could ;e availed of as a defense.

Page | 122



A?ERE ORE, the decision of :anuar+ 0*, $( = is reversed and the suit of plaintiff filed &ugust $=,$('( dis issed. No costs.

Page | 123



# 1 IRS3 DIVISION

G.R. No. 10 631. No<% >%( 18, 1999

)ERNANDO GARCIA, UANITO GARCIA, +$ ENCESLAO TORRES, petitioners1 !s . EO LEO) T"E "ILI INES, +$ "ON. RICARDO . GALVE4, *+ '*s o&&*-* = - -*t2 s t

(%s*$*+g u$g% o& B( +-' 59, R%g*o+ = T(* = Cou(t o& I=o*=o,respondents .

D E C I S I O N

ARDO,J. :

3he case ;efore the Court is a special civil action for mandamus to co pel the Regional 3rialCourt, 8ranch 0(, Iloilo, to for ard the records of Cri inal Case No. 0=**2 to the Supre e Court for auto atic revie of the decision finding petitioners guilt+ of urder and sentencing each of theto reclusion perpetua, to pa+ jointl+ and severall+, the heirs of :ose Estrella the su of 51=,===.== ascivil inde nit+, to suffer the accessor+ penalties of the la and to pa+ the costs.

Ae den+ the petition.

3he facts are as follo s"

On Septe ;er 0(, $() , the 5rovincial iscal of Bui aras filed ith the Regional 3rial Court, IloiloCit+, an infor ation charging petitioners ith urder for the killing of one :ose Estrella. G$H

&fter due trial, on Septe ;er 0$, $((=, the trial court pro ulgated its decision convictingpetitioners of the cri e charged and sentencing each of the to the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua, topa+ jointl+ and severall+, the heirs of :ose Estrella the su of 51=,===.== as civil inde nit+, to suffer the accessor+ penalties of the la and to pa+ the costs. G0H

On Septe ;er 02, $((=, petitioners filed ith the trial court a otion for reconsideration of thedecision. G1H ?o ever, on Septe ;er 0, $(($, the trial court denied the otion. G2H On Septe ;er ', $(($petitioner received notice of the order of denial. G'H 5etitioners did not interpose an appea lG H fro thedecision ;+ the filing of a notice of appeal. 3hus, the decision ;eca e final on Septe ;er $*,$(($.&ccordingl+, the trial court issued arrants for the arrest of petitioners.

On Nove ;er $1, $(($, petitioners filed ith the trial court a otion to lift arrant of arrest and toallo accused to appeal, arguing that there as no need for the to appeal the decision as the sa e

as su;ject to auto atic revie ;+ the Supre e Court. G*H

On :anuar+ $*, $((0, the trial court denied the otion.G)H

On e;ruar+ $2, $((0, the trial court also denied petitioners otion for reconsideration. G(H

?ence, the present recourse. G$=H

On :ul+ $', $((0, e re7uired respondents to file co ent on the petition, G$$H hich the Solicitor Beneral filed on &ugust 0', $((0.

On :anuar+ $), $((', e gave due course to the petition. G$0H

Page | 124

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/106531.htm#_edn1



























&t issue is hether the Supre e Court ust auto aticall+ revie a trial courts decision convictingan accused of a capital offense and sentencing hi to reclusion perpetua . In other ords, is theaccused not re7uired to interpose an appeal fro a trial courts decision sentencing hi to reclusion

perpetua to the Supre e Court ;ecause the latters revie of the sentence is auto aticL

3he issue is not ne . Ae have consistentl+ ruled that it is onl+ in cases here the penalt+ actuall+i posed is death that the trial court ust for ard the records of the case to the Supre e Court for auto atic revie of the conviction. G$1H

&s the petitioners did not file a notice of appeal or other ise indicate their desire to appeal fro thedecision convicting the of urder and sentencing each of the to reclusion perpetua , the decision;eca e final and unappeala;le.

Conse7uentl+, mandamus ill not issue to co pel the trial court to elevate the records to theSupre e Court.

IN VIE "EREO) , the Court here;+ DIS4ISSES the petition for mandamus to co pel the trialcourt to elevate the records of Cri inal Case No. 0=**2 to the Supre e Court.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 125





# (( SECOND DIVISION

A.!. No. 1315 C)I +u (2 31, 1978

ANTONIO V. RA UI4A,co plaint, vs. DISTRICT UDGE !ARIANO CASTA EDA, R., COURT O))IRST INSTANCE O) A! ANGA, BRANC" III, respondent.

BARREDO,J.:

5etition to order the transfer of Special 5roceedings No. )02 of the Court of irst Instance of 5a panga#3estate Estate of the late Don &lfonso Castellvi% fro the sala of respondent judge, ?on. 4arianoCastaPeda to another ;ranch and ad inistrative co plaint against the sa e judge for <#$% violation of the

&nti-Braft @a / #0% rendering decision kno ing it to ;e unjust and illegal #1% e6tortion ;+ eans ofoppression/ and #2% ;ri;er+.

&fter respondent judge had filed his co ent on said petition and ad inistrative co plaint, the Courtresolved on &ugust 1, $(* to refer the a ad inistrative co plaint to :ustice :ose B. 8autista of the Court of

&ppeals for investigation, report and reco endation. >nder date of Septe ;er $, $(** and after dul+hearing the parties, :ustice 8autista su; itted the follo ing report"

Co plainant &ntonio V. Ra7ui!a charges the dent ?on. 4ariano CastaPeda :r., under four counts, na el+"

I. Violation of the &nti-Braft @a /

II. Decision kno ing it to ;e unjust and illegal/

III. E6tortion ;+ eans of oppression/ and

IV. 8ri;er+.

I F >nder Count I. co plainant charges respondent of giving 4rs. Natividad Castellvi Ra7ui!a and 4rs.Nieves 3oledo-Bo!un un arranted ;enefits, advantage or preference in violation of paragraph #e%, Section1, Repu;lic &ct 1=$(, other ise kno n as the &nti- Braft @a . hich reads"

Sec. 1. Corrupt practices of pu;lic officers. In addition to acts or o issions of pu;lic officersalread+ penali!ed ;+ e6isting la , the follo ing shall constitute corrupt practices of an+ pu;licofficer and are here;+ declared to ;e unla ful"

666 666 666

#e%Causin( any undue injury to any party, includin( the Government, or (ivin( any private

party un%arranted benefits, advanta(e or preference in the dischar(e of his officialad inistrative or judicial functions throu(h manifest partiality, respondent bad faith or grossine6cusa;le negligence. 3his provision shall appl+ to officers and e plo+ees of offices orgovern ent corporations charged ith the grant of licenses or per its or other concessions.

3hese t o parties according to co plainant are not entitled to get an+ share fro the second release of5$,===,===.== for the Castellvi Estate and +et the+ ere a;le to receive 50==,===.== and 5'==,===.==,respectivel+. Co plainant further clai s that 4rs. Ra7ui!a has no ore share or participation in theCastellvi Estate and in the case of 4rs. Bo!un she has no right to ;e given a share of the second release asit is intended solel+ for the Ra7ui!a children.

Page | 126



Co plainant also charges respondent under paragraph #f%, section 1 of Repu;lic &ct 1=$( hich provides"

#f%>e(lectin( or refusin(, after due demand or request, %ithout sufficient justification, to act%ithin a reasonable time on any matter endin( before hi for the purpose of o;taining,directl+ or indirectl+ fro an+ person interested in the atter so e pecuniar+ or aterial;enefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his o n interest or (ivin( undueadvanta(e in favor of discriminatin( a(ainst any other interested party .

in having allegedl+ neglected or refused after several otions and oral de ands, the release of the a ountof 5$,===,===.== #3reasur+ Aarrant No. D-=2,01$,(2)% to the Ra7ui!a children there;+ giving undueadvantage to ;oth 4rs. Ra7ui!a and 4rs. Bo!un discri inating against the Ra7ui!a children.

II F >nder Count II, co plainant charges respondent ith a violation of &rticle 0=2 of the Revised 5enalCode for kno ingl+ and deliveratel+ issuing his illegal orders of e;ruar+ 0', and 0 , $(* allo ing 4rs.Ra7ui!a to o;tain a loan of 50==,===.== fro the 5hilippine Veterans 8ank using the e7uivalent a ount inthe second release of 5$,===,===.== deposited in the ;ank in the na e of the Castellvi Estate as collateral.Co plainant contends that respondent :udge kno s that 4rs. Ra7ui!a has no ore participation or interestin or an+ rights to the Castellvi Estate since according to the records in Civil Case No. 0* $ entitled <5o;revs. Natividad Castellvi Ra7ui!a,< ;oth parties agreed to give all the properties su;ject atter of the suit tothe Ra7ui!a children.

III F >nder Count III, co plainant alleges that respondent co itted atte pted e6tortion ;+ oppression inthat after 4rs. Ra7ui!a got the total of 511=,===.== fro the 5hilippine Veterans 8ank in connection ith thefirst release of 5$,===,===.==, he visited the respondent :udge in his house asking that he ould alsorelease the ;alance of 51==,===.== to the Ra7ui!a children ;ecause part of the one+ ould ;e used ;+co plainant in going to the >nited States for his e+e treat ent/ and that respondent pro ised to give thenecessar+ order the follo ing da+. Co plainant ent to 5a panga the follo ing orning per advice ofrespondent and sa the judge in his private cha ;er/ that the judge invited co plainant to a corner of theroo and told hi that he needed one+, that taken a;ack ;+ such alleged act of graft and corruption,co plainant shouted in a ver+ loud voice, < ou are corrupt.< 3here is graft and corruption in this office andthen left the roo / ;ut that follo ing the sa+ing, <a an in need is a ;eggar<, co plainant called the judge afe da+s later and assistant. that the+ ere reconciled ;ut nonetheless. the respondent despite severalre7uests fro &tt+. u!on, counsel for the co plainant, consistentl+ failed to co pl+ ith his pro ise that he

ould release one+ for the Ra7ui!a children/ that after the reconciliation, co plainant visited therespondent :udge in his house and the latter pro ised to give the order the follo ing da+/ that it as onl+after repeated trips of &tt+. u!on or his assistant. 4r. Bracio Dacutan, to 5a panga that the respondent:udge released the total a ount of 51'=,===.== to the Ra7ui!a children/ that as the Ra7ui!a childrenurgentl+ needed so e of the one+ for the selves, the ;alance as not enough an+ ore to finance the tripof the co plainant to the >nited States/ hence, he asked again the 5resident to release another5$,===,===.==/ that the co plainant ;rands the i position of this hardships ;+ respondent :udge, hich issupposedl+ a case of e6tortion ;+ eans of oppression here respondent su;jected co plainant, hiscounsel &tt+. u!on and his assistant Bracio Dacutan, had to shuttle ever+da+ for a period of a;out one

onth ;et een 4anila to 5a panga to get the pro ised order of release hich never ca e up to the

present.

IV F &s to the fourth count, the co plainant charges the respondent of ;ri;er+, in that <he #respondent% gets;ri;e one+ fro 4rs. Ra7ui!a and surel+ fro all other parties/< that on the first release of 5$,===,===.==,respondent :udge e6torted 5*=,===.== fro 4rs. Ra7ui!a out of the release of a;out 511=,===.==.

In his co ent or ans er to the charges, respondent alleged that those indict ents are devoid of factualand or legal ;asis ;ecause"

&s to Charge I #Violation of &nti-Braft @a % and II #kno ingl+ rendering unjust and illegal judg ent%,respondent 4rs. Ra7ui!a still has a share in the Castellvi Estate ;ecause ;+ testa entar+ provision

Page | 127



approved ;+ final judg ent, Natividad Castellvi Ra7ui!a as instituted heir, is entitled to 0 ) share of theestate although one-half #$ 0% of said 0 1 had ;een transferred to her children ;+ virtue of a co pro iseagree ent su; itted ;+ >r;ane 5o;re in Civil Case No. 0* $ entitled >r;ano 5o;re vs. Natividad Castellvi-Ra7ui!a #E6hs. 0 1, Orders of :udge ?onorio Ro ero dated 4arch 0(, $(*$ and 4a+ 0 , $(*$ in Sp.5roc. No. )02%. Note that a case for reconve+ance as filed ;+ Natividad Castellvi Ra7ui!a #Civil Case No.1'=( of the Court of irst Instance of 5a panga against her children. Said case is still pending hearing anddecision according to respondent. Respondent avers that it as onl+ after careful stud+ of the records #$;ig volu es% of Special 5roceeding No. )02 that he granted on :une $(, $(*' the otion of 4rs. Ra7ui!afiled on :anuar+ 01, $(*' for authorit+ to o;tain loan ;elieving that 4rs. Ra7ui!a still has a share, interestand participation in the su;ject estate.

Respondent also e6plained that the testate estate of &lfonso Castellvi is still on li7uidation hen the firstrelease of $ illion as ade ;+ the govern ent in partial pa+ ent of the e6propriated propert+ of theestate/ that as several clai of creditors have not ;een paid, respondent as not inclined at the outset toallo an+ Cash release/ and that the second release of $ illion could not have ;een intended solel+ for theRa7ui!a children, uch less for the use of the co plainant in his trip to the >nited States for his e+etreat ent as clai ed/ that the reason given in co plainant9s re7uest to the 5resident dated Dece ;er 0(,$(*' for the release of the 5$ illion out of the 50, ==,===.== as that the one+ ould ;e used <inpatenting the Super-Bas Reducer in all car anufacturing countries in the orld< #E6h. '%/ thatco plainant9s representative capacit+ as attorne+-in-fact of his children as ell as the purpose for seeking

the ithdra al of the entire second release of 5$ illion is 7uestiona;le ;ecause @il+ Ra7ui!a, one of theco plainant9s children, denied having signed or granted an+ po er of attorne+ #p. 10, Rollo%/ that in vie ofthe foregoing, respondent judge could not properl+ ;e charged ith having kno ingl+ rendered an unjust

judg ent or interlocutor+ order.

&s to Charge III #I % ;+ 4eans of Oppression%"

Respondent states that the co ission of atte pted e6tortion against co plainant is highl+ i pro;a;le/ thatco plainant did not descri;e the9 shouting spree9 incident faithfull+ ;ecause"

Respondent does not approve of ;eing approached in his house in connection ith his official functions andithout pro ising co plainant an+thing, advised the latter to see respondent in his office/ that the follo ingorning hen co plainant ent to his court cha ;er, &tt+. Celia 4acapagal and other la +ers and t o or

three of the court9s personnel ere inside the cha ;er/ that co plainant then pleaded for help that he ould;e a;le to go to the >nited States for his e+e treat ent, sa+ing that after all the first release as authori!ed;+ the 5resident precisel+ for that purpose/ that co plainant anted in the corresponding order to ;e issued;+ respondent that so uch a ount of his children9s shares in the second release should ;e specificall+ordered paid or given to co plainant/ that in a nice a+, respondent e6plained to co plainant of theunsettled clai s of creditors of the late that even ore co plainant as not the ovant ;ut his children and

hat his children ould ant to lend hi is a atter ;et een hi and his children/ that co plainant thenreplied, <:udge, if +ou ould not give e the s all a ount I need, I ill ;e +our nu ;er one ene + ... +ouchut</ that respondent stood up to reach for his crutches #respondent then had s ollen foot due to hisarthritis% and ordered 9&rrest that an9 ;ut co plainant had alread+ left/ that co plainant9s accusation is the

height of a;surdit+ since respondent ould not ;e that stupid and careless to choose his court cha ;er#;arel+ 0-$ 0 6 1-$ 0 eters% and in the presence of an+ listeners and vie ers to atte pt an e6tortionagainst co plainant, a an of kno n stature, an e6-Bovernor. Congress an, Ca;inet e ;er and adelegate to the Constitutional Convention.

&s to Charge IV - #8ri;er+%" F

Respondent e6plains this is unthinka;le ;ecause

5etitioner should surel+ ad it that 4rs. Ra7ui!a is even hard to converseith. 3o talk to her, one has to speak loud or shout. She could uch less ;e

Page | 128



hispered to. 3his considering, one could not ask so ething fro her ithout;eing heard. Arite her a note, for evidence in order to ;e caught 3his isa;surd.

that authorit+ as given 4rs. Ra7ui!a onl+ on :une $(, $(*' al ost ' onths of stud+ of her otion filed on:anuar+ 01, $(*'/ that the authorit+ as for 5'==,===.==, hich as even reduced to onl+ 5111,===.== or$ 1 of 5$,===,===.== hen such release as kno n.

&s the letter co plaint and the ans er or co ent of respondent are ;oth verified, the+ ere adopted aspart of the respective evidence of the parties. 3he+ also introduced additional oral and docu entar+ proofs.8esides co plainant, his counsel &tt+. 4anuel uson and the latter9s assistant. Bracio Dacutan, testified.

or the respondent, &tt+. Celia 4acapagal, &tt+. Vicente Sicat and respondent :udge offered testi onial anddocu entar+ evidence.

&fter a careful stud+ of all the evidence on record, I find the charges not su;stantiated. 3here is factual andlegal ;asis for respondent9s conclusion that 4rs. Ra7ui!a has still a share or participation in the Castellviestate and that 4rs. Bo!un has like ise a right to ;e given a share of the second release. &s to the first#4rs. Ra7ui!a,9 her right as instituted heir of 0 1 of the estate is recogni!ed ;+ final judg ent although ;+co pro ise agree ent, $ 0 as transferred ;+ her to her children #E6h. 0%. 3he Ra7ui!a children sought areconsideration of the order of :udge Ro ero #E6h. 0%, ;ut the otion as denied ;+ the sa e :udge #E6h.

1%. 3here appears no appeal fro said order.

4oreover, the Ra7ui!a children su;se7uentl+ respected the re aining share of their other ;+ e6pressl+agreeing to her re7uest to the 5hilippine Veterans 8ank president for additional loan #E6h. 2%.

It is not also re;utted that several clai s chargea;le against the estate has not ;een co pletel+ settled forhich reason respondent at the outset refused to grant an+ release. ?o ever, for hu anitarian

considerations and

... ainl+ on the ;asis of the 5resident9s hand ritten note on co plainant9s letter, dated :ul+$ , $(*' #E6h. )%, respondent authori!ed the ithdra al fro the funds of the CastellviEstate in the 5hilippines Veterans 8ank derived fro the first release of 5$ illion, for thedeliver+ to the Ra7ui!a children Dais+, &ntonio. :r.. @ev+ and Douglas, in the a ount of502),===.==, and an additional a ount of 50=,===.==, under his orders, dated &ugust 0=,$(*' and Nove ;er 02, $(*' respectivel+/ and a separate a ount of 5 =,===.== toco plainant9s daughter @il+ Ra7ui!a #E6h. ( and $(%/ and after the said Ra7ui!a children

ere granted their afore entioned shares, respondent ordered the i ediate pa+ ent of4rs. Ra7ui!a9s loan ;+ the said ;ank, in the a ount of 511=,===.==/

$( F 3hat under his letter, dated Dece ;er 0(, $(*', #E6h. '%, co plainantre7uested again the 5resident to release 5$ illion fro the funds of theCastellvi Estate to the Ra7ui!a children to ;e used ;+ the in patenting theSuper-Bas Reducer in all car anufacturing countries in the orld9, and after

the 5resident authori!ed the release of 5I illion ;+ the Bovern ent su;jectto the availa;ilit+ of funds, the 3reasurer of the 5hilippines, follo ing thereco endation of the 3:&B of the & 5, issued 3reasur+ Aarrant No. D-0)$-(2) for pa+ ent to the Castellvi Estate, hich as actuall+ released tothe 5hil. Veterans 8ank, ;+ the &r +, on e;ruar+ $$, $(* /

&s regards the pa+ ent to 4aria Nieves 3oledo Bo!un it appears that of the three e6propriated properties,one parcel ;elongs to the Castellvi Estate hile t o parcels are o ned ;+ 4aria Nieves 3oledo, ho at theti e hen pa+ ent as ordered, had not +et received an+ partial pa+ ent and had filed a otion fore6ecution #Civil Case No. $ 01 or B.R. No. @-0= 0=% pra+ing for partial pa+ ent. &s respondent correctl+argues, 9... for reasons of justice and e7uit+ #he% just follo ed the andate of the Supre e Court in B.R. No.

Page | 129



@-0= 0=, &ugust $', $(*2, for pa+ ent of the corresponding just co pensation to ;oth o ners of theproperties conde ned.9 3hus, in sharing lando ner 4aria Nieves 3oledo Bo!un in the second release,respondent had factual and legal ;asis and can hardl+ ;e ;randed as giving <un arranted ;enefits,advantage or preference< under paragraph #e%, section 1 of the &nti-Braft @a .

Si ilarl+, considering that 4r. Ra7ui!a has a sha in the Castellvi estate hich is still on li7uidation/ that thesecond release could not have ;een intended solel+ for the Ra7ui!a children nor for co plainant9s trip to the>nited States for his alleged e+e treat ent/ and that co plainant9s authorit+ to represent all his children had

;een 7uestioned ;+ no less than one of his children, I find it hard to respondent :udge kno ing that the+unjust and illegal.

Relative to the charge of e6tortion ;+ eans of oppression, the undersigned ;elieves as ore pro;a;le theversion testified to ;+ the respondent at the investigation as ell as in his verified co ent. Indeed, it ould;e stretching credi;ilit+ to its ; point to ;elieve that in a s all roo #0-$ 0 6 1-$ 0 eters% the respondent

ould have thro n all precautions to the inds and de and ;ri;e one+ in the presence of &tt+. Celia4acapagal, &tt+. Sicat, &tt+. u!on, iscal 4acalino, 4essrs. along and Dacutan- Co plainant9s versioncannot stand the test of co on e6perience and the ordinar+ instincts of hu an nature and thereforeshould ;e dis;elieved. 3here is no evidence presented ;+ co plainant that hen he visited that respondentin the latter9s residence in ue!on Cit+, the respondent asked for one+. 3here is ore privac+ inrespondent9s ho e rather than in his s all office and +et respondent in a place of a;solute privac+ never

asked or de anded for ;ri;e one+.

One salient fact also denies the veracit+ of the version of the co plainant relative to the <shouting incident.<It is not denied that at the ti e the respondent could hardl+ stand and alk ithout crutches. ?e could nothave stood therefore on a corner of the court cha ;er during the incident. Ahat is ore, as he as seatedon a chair at the end of his desk to the right and that since co plainant as onl+ one eter a a+ fro hi ,the conversation naturall+ ould have ;een audi;le and the itnesses inside the court cha ;er nevertestified that the respondent as asking one+ fro the co plainant. 3he evidence also re ainsunre;utted that a fe da+s after the said incident, the co plainant apologi!ed to the respondent for hat hehad done. On top of it all, it is difficult to ;elieve that the respondent ould have co itted e6tortion oratte pted e6tortion against the co plainant, ho is reputedl+ of high stature, not counting that he as afor er provincial governor, congress an, ca;inet e ;er and delegate to the Constitutional Conventionand it could have taken so uch nerve and daring to do such an act.

&s regards the fourth charge of ;ri;er+, co plainant clai s that 4rs. Ra7ui!a had told hi that out of the51==,===.== she o;tained as loan fro the first release of 5$ illion, she gave 5*=,===.== to therespondent, the undersigned also finds that this charge as not su;stantiated. In the first place, thetesti on+ is purel+ hearsa+. &s the co plainant testified on cross-e6a ination"

our other charge is ;ri;er+. ou entioned that the :udge e6torted 5*=,=== fro 4rs.Ra7ui!a, hat is +our ;asis L

& It as told to e ;+ 4rs. Ra7ui!a.

I thought +ou are a ido erL

& I a separated fro her, ;ut she co es to the house ver+ often.

INVES3IB&3OR"

4a+ the Investigator in7uire, is that separation legal

& I filed a divorce in the States.

Page | 130



666 666 666

So +ou are not a ido erL

& I a a ido er.

I cannot understand thatL

& es, I a arried to another o an.

ou said +ou ere told ;+ 4rs. Ra7ui!aL

& She told e she practicall+ spent $ 0 of hat as given to her.

666 666 666

So, +our ;asis is hat +ou got fro 4rs. Ra7ui!a

& es.

Of +our o n personal kno ledge, +ou don9t kno thatL

& I have not seen 4rs. Ra7ui!a giving the one+ to hi . #pp. $ $*,$), tsn., e;. 0, $(**%

4rs. Ra7ui!a as not presented to testif+ on the atter. 3he rules even in an ad inistrative case de andsthat if the respondent :udge should ;e disciplined for grave isconduct or an+ graver offense, the evidencepresented against hi should ;e co petent and derived fro direct kno ledge. 3he judiciar+, to hichrespondent ;elongs, no less de ands that ;efore its e ;er could ;e faulted, it should ;e onl+ after dueinvestigation and ;ased on co petent proofs, no less. 3his is all the ore so hen as in this case thecharges are penal in nature.

3he ground for the re oval of a judicial officer should ;e esta;lished ;e+ond reasona;ledou;t. Such is the rule here the charges on hich the re oval is sought is isconduct inoffice, illful neglect, corruption, inco petenc+, etc. 3he general rules in regard toad issi;ilit+ of evidence in cri inal trials appl+ #11 C.:. (2', see. 2*%/ also NationalIntelligence and Securit+ &uthorit+ #NIS&% vs. 4artine!, 0 SCR& 2$$/ Castral vs. 8ullecer 2SCR& 0)(/ 4el7uiades >dani :r. vs. 5agharion ' SCR& '2(%

5arentheticall+, under Count I and II, 9 isconduct9 also i plies a rongful intention and not a ere error of judg ent9 #8uenaventura v. ?on. 4ariano V. 8enedicto, 1) SCR& *$%. It results that even if respondent erenot collect in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot ;e regarded as grave isconduct, unlessthe contrar+ sufficientl+ appears. &nd undersigned finds, as a;ove discussed, that co plainant9s evidence is

anting in this respect.

A?ERE ORE, it is respectfull+ reco ended that the charges against the respondent ;e dis issed forlack of erit.

Ae have revie ed the record, including the pt of the testi onies of the itnesses and the other evidencesu; itted ;+ the parties. &fter careful consideration thereof, Ae find the conclusions of fact and thereco endations of the Investigator in the a;ove report to ;e ell taken and full+ sup. ported ;+ theevidence on record.

Page | 131



&CCORDINB@ , the a;ove-7uoted report of :ustice 8autista is approved, the respondent judge ise6onerated and the ad inistrative case against hi is dis issal 3he petition to transfer Special 5roceedingsNo. )02 to another judge is denied.

Page | 132



# EN BANC

G.R No. 5051 3 ; u=2 03, 5015

)A!ELA R. DULAY <. UDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND A UITO N. OC"OA, R., ASE:ECUTIVE SECRETARY.

S*(s !%s$ %s;

lease ta)e notice that the Court en banc issued a Besolution dated ULY 3, 5015, %hich reads asfollo%sO crala

<G.R No. 5051 3 ) %= R. Du= 2 <. u$*-* = +$ B ( Cou+-*= +$ u*to N. O-'o , (., sE %-ut*<% S%-(%t (2./. - 3his is a 5etition for Certiorari and 5rohi;ition, under Rule ' of the Rules ofCourt, ith 5ra+er for the Issuance of a 3e porar+ Restraining Order, filed ;+ petitioner a ela R.Dula+ against the :udicial and 8ar Council #:8C% and E6ecutive Secretar+ 5a7uito N. Ochoa, :r.,raising the follo ing issues"

&. Ahether the respondent ?onora;le :8C can legiti atel+, validl+ and constitutionall+ accepts#sic% application for no ination and intervie of no inees for the position of a Chief :ustice ofthe ?onora;le Court and, thereafter, su; its #sic% short list of no inees to the 5resident of theRepu;lic of the 5hilippines for the appoint ent of a Chief :ustice of the ?onora;le Court/

8. Ahether the 5resident of the Repu;lic of the 5hilippines a+ legiti atel+, validl+ andconstitutionall+ appoint a Chief :ustice of the ?onora;le Court, in replace ent of the re ovedand i peached ?onora;le Renato C. Corona/

C. Ahether the respondent ?onora;le :8C can constitutionall+ ;e headed ;+ a retired &ssociate:ustice of the ?onora;le Court, instead of an incu ;ent Chief :ustice of the ?onora;le Court. G$H

5etitioner clai s that the 5resident of the Repu;lic of the 5hilippines cannot legiti atel+, validl+, andconstitutionall+ appoint the Chief :ustice of the Supre e Court, ;ecause the $()* Constitution onl+e po ers hi to appoint e ;ers or :ustices ;ut not the Chief :ustice. G0H She adds that the Chief:ustice should ;e replaced and designated e6clusivel+ fro a ong their peers. G1H 5etitioner alsocontends that the :8C cannot ;e validl+, legall+ and constitutionall+ headed ;+ a retired &ssociate:ustice of the Supre e Court, ;ecause the Constitution specificall+ provides that it ;e headed ;+ the

incu ;ent Chief :ustice and no other.G2H

Ae dis iss the petition.

&t the outset, e look into the locus standi of petitioner to institute the present petition.

&s held in 3e Castro v. Judicial and *ar CouncilO G'H

666 In pu;lic or constitutional litigations, the Court is often ;urdened ith the deter ination of the locusstandi of the petitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention ofthe Court to correct an+ official action or polic+ in order to avoid o;structing the efficient functioning ofpu;lic officials and offices involved in pu;lic service. It is re7uired, therefore, that the petitioner usthave a personal stake in the outco e of the controvers+. G H

Indeed a li;eral approach had ;een adopted in several nota;le cases. 5etitioner a+ not ;e asadversel+ affected ;+ the action co plained against as are others provided that she sufficientl+de onstrates in her petition that she is entitled to protection or relief fro the Court in the vindication of a pu;lic right. 3he assertion of a pu;lic right as a predicate for challenging an official action rests on thetheor+ that the petitioner represents the pu;lic in general. G*H

In this case, ho ever, petitioner has not sho n in her petition that she is entitled to protection or relieffro the Court. She did not even e6plain her capacit+ in instituting the present special civil action for certiorari and prohi;ition. No here in her petition did she assert her right either as citi!en or ta6pa+erfiling her petition on ;ehalf of the pu;lic ho are directl+ affected ;+ the issues. &ccordingl+, she is

anting in legal standing to institute the instant petition. Outright dis issal of the present petition is,therefore, arranted.

Page | 133



Even if e ignore the technical defect and e look into the erits of the case, the petition is still ;oundto ;e dis issed.

Si pl+ stated, petitioner seeks the resolution of t o su;stantive issues" #$% hether or not the5resident of the 5hilippines has the constitutional po er to appoint the Chief :ustice of the Supre eCourt/ and #0% hether or not the :8C can validl+ ;e headed ;+ a person other than the incu ;entChief :ustice.

Ae ans er in the affir ative to ;oth 7uestions.

Section (, &rticle VIII of the Constitution, provides for the appoint ent of :ustices and :udges, to it"$ection . 3he Members o" t%e Supreme &ourt and judges of lo er courts shall ;e appointed ;+ the5resident fro a list of at least three no inees prepared ;+ the :udicial and 8ar Council for ever+vacanc+. Such appoint ents need no confir ation. 6 6 6 #E phasis supplied%

In interpreting the a;ove-stated constitutional provision, petitioner considers onl+ the &ssociate :usticesas the < e ;ers of the Supre e Court< there;+ e6cluding the Chief :ustice fro the 5resident9sappointing po er. Said interpretation is ;aseless.

& plain reading of the constitutional provisions on the :udicial Depart ent in &rticle VIII of the $()*Constitution clearl+ sho s that the phrase <4e ;ers of the Supre e Court< and the ords <4e ;ers<and <4e ;er< are repeatedl+ used to refer to the :ustices of the Supre e Court ithout distinction

hether he ;e the Chief :ustice or an+ of the &ssociate :ustices or all fifteen :ustices.

Section 2 #l%,G)H &rticle VIII thereof defines the co position of the Supre e Court, na el+, <a Chief:ustice and fourteen &ssociate :ustices< ho a+ sit en banc or, in its discretion, in divisions of three,five, or seven Members / Section 2 #0%G(H and #1%G$=H descri;e the anner of conducting ;usiness in theCourt hether it ;e n *anc or in division/ Section * #$% G$$H enu erates the 7ualifications of the4e ;ers of the Court and the other e ;ers of the :udiciar+/ Section $$ G$0H provides for the securit+ of tenure in the :udiciar+/ Section $0 G$1Hstates the prohi;ition on non-judicial assign ents of the 4e ;ersof the Supre e Court and of other courts/ and Section $1 G$2H la+s do n the process of decision- aking.In all of these provisions, the phrase <4e ;ers of the Supre e Court< as repeatedl+ used to refer notonl+ to the &ssociate :ustices of the Supre e Court ;ut includes the Chief :ustice. 3hus, in Section (of the sa e &rticle VIII on the appoint ent of :ustices and :udges, the phrase <4e ;ers of theSupre e Court< clearl+ refers to the fifteen :ustices of the Court - one Chief :ustice and fourteen #$2%

&ssociate :ustices - ho are ithin the appointing po er of the 5resident. &lthough decided under adifferent Constitution, e reiterate the Court9s pronounce ent in 0ar(as v. Billoraza G$'H that <there can;e no dou;t that the Chief :ustice and &ssociate :ustices re7uired 6 6 6 to co pose the Supre e Courtare the regular e ;ers of the Court.< G$ H

Ae, like ise, do not agree ith petitioner that the :8C can onl+ ;e headed ;+ the incu ;ent Chief:ustice and no other. 5etitioner, in effect, argues that the :8C cannot perfor its task ithout anincu ;ent Chief :ustice. 3o follo this logic ould lead to an eventualit+ here a vacanc+ in the:udiciar+ ill not ;e filled if a vacanc+ occurs in the :8C. Ae can like ise infer fro this argu ent thatif the Office of the Chief :ustice is vacated, the sa e ill not ;e filled ;ecause there ill ;e no<incu ;ent Chief :ustice< to act as Chair an of the :8C.

Ae definitel+ cannot sustain these argu ents. 3he principal function of the :8C is to reco endappointees to the :udiciar+. G$*H or ever+ vacanc+, the :8C su; its to the 5resident a list of at leastthree no inees and the 5resident a+ not appoint an+;od+ ho is not in the list. G$)H &n+ vacanc+ in theSupre e Court is re7uired ;+ the Constitution to ;e filled ithin (= da+s fro the occurrence thereof.G$(H 3his (=-da+ period is andator+. It cannot, therefore, ;e co pro ised onl+ ;ecause theconstitutionall+-na ed Chair an could not sit in the :8C. &lthough it ould ;e prefera;le if the

e ;ership of the :8C is co plete, the :8C can still operate to perfor its andated task ofsu; itting the list of no inees to the 5resident even if the constitutionall+-na ed eA4officioChair andoes not sit in the :8C. 3his intention is evident fro the e6changes a ong the Co issioners duringthe deli;erations of the Constitutional Co ission of $() , viz ."

4R. DE C&S3RO. I understand that our justices no in the Supre e Court, together ith the Chief:ustice, are onl+ $$.

Page | 134



4R. CONCE5CION. es.

4R. DE C&S3RO. &nd the second sentence of this su;section reads" <&n+ vacanc+ shall ;e filledithin ninet+ da+s fro the occurrence thereof.<


4R. DE C&S3RO. Is this no a andate to the e6ecutive to fill the vacanc+L

4R. CONCE5CION. 3hat is right. 3hat is ;orne out of the fact that in the past 1= +ears, seldo has theCourt had a co plete co ple ent.

4R. DE C&S3RO. 8+ that ti e, upon ratification of this Constitution, the :udicial and 8ar Council shall;e in operation.

4R. CONCE5CION. Ae hope so.

4R. DE C&S3RO. &nd one of the e ;ers thereof is a 4e ;er of Congress.


4R. DE C&S3RO. &n eA officio e ;er. 8+ the ti e this is ratified, Congress is not +et convened andthere ill still ;e an election/ so there ill still ;e a dela+ of ore than (= da+s. 4a+;e ;efore thevacancies occur in the Supre e Court, the+ ill ;e filled up ;+ the 5resident.

4R. CONCE5CION. 3hat is possi;le.

4R. DE C&S3RO. 3herefore, it ill take perhaps until Nove ;er or Dece ;er ;efore the four other justices ill ;e appointed, if e follo the :udicial and 8ar Council. O( - + t'% u$*-* = +$ B (Cou+-*= &u+-t*o+ @*t'out t'% (%s%+-% 2%t o& % >%( o& Co+g(%ss @'o *s +e5- o""icio % >%(

4R. CONCE5CION. It - + o %( t% @*t'out t'% % o&&*-*o % >%( >%- us% ?o(*t2 @ou=%+oug', =t'oug' *t @ou=$ >% (%&%( >=% *& *t @%(% -o =%t%.

4R. DE C&S3RO. So that upon ratification of this Constitution, it is possi;le, and the 5resident a+ doit ;+ appointing the e ;ers of the :udicial and 8ar Council ithout first a representative froCongress.

4R. CONCE5CION. 3hat is correct.

4R. DE C&S3RO. So that e can i ediatel+ fill up the four vacancies in the Supre e Court.4R. CONCE5CION. 3hat is correct.

4R. DE C&S3RO. I a asking this just for the record, that the vacancies in the Supre e Court ;ei ediatel+ filled up so that our ;acklog of cases can ;e i ediatel+ attended to.

6 6 6 #E phases supplied% G0=H

Considering, ho ever, that co plete e ;ership in the :8C is prefera;le and pursuant to itssupervisor+ po er over the :8C, this Court should not ;e deprived of representation. 3he ost Senior:ustice of this Court ho is not an applicant for the position of Chief :ustice should participate in thedeli;erations for the selection of no inees for the said vacant post and preside over the proceedings inthe a;sence of the constitutionall+-na ed A4+fficioChair an, pursuant to Section $0 of Repu;lic &ctNo. 0( , or the :udiciar+ &ct of $(2), to it"S%-t*o+ 15.6acancy in o""ice o" &%ie" Justice . - In case of vacanc+ in the office of the Chief :usticeof the Supre e Court, or of his ina;ilit+ to perfor the duties and po ers of his office, the+ shalldevolve upon the &ssociate :ustice ho is first in precedence, until such disa;ilit+ is re oved, oranother Chief :ustice is appointed and dul+ 7ualified. 3his provision shall appl+ to ever+ &ssociate:ustice ho succeeds to the office of Chief :ustice. #E phasis supplied.%

IN VIEA O 3?E OREBOINB, e DIS!ISS the petition.< # Carpio, 0elasco, Jr., Leonardo43e Castro,*rion, !bad and $ereno, JJ ., no part, eralta, J ., presiding, *ersamin, 3el Castillo, 0illarama, Jr.,

erez, Mendoza, Beyes, erlas4*ernabe, JJ. , present%

Page | 135



# 61 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. L 5 7 No<% >%( 58, 1938)RANCISCO 4ANDUETA, petitioner, vs. SI:TO DE LA COSTA, respondent.

VILLA REAL,J.:

3his is a quo %arranto proceeding instituted ;+ the ?onora;le rancisco Mandueta against the?onora;le Si6to de la Costa to o;tain fro this court a judg ent declaring the respondent to ;eillegall+ occup+ing the office of :udge of the ifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila,

ourth :udicial District, ousting hi fro said office, and holding that the petitioner is entitled tocontinue occup+ing the office in 7uestion ;+ placing hi in possession thereof, ith costs to saidrespondent.

5rior to the pro ulgation of Co on ealth &ct No. $2', the petitioner, the ?onora;le ranciscoMandueta as discharging the office of judge of first instance, Ninth :udicial District, co prisingsolel+ the Cit+ of 4anila, and as presiding over the ifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance ofsaid cit+, ;+ virtue of an ad interim appoint ent issued ;+ the 5resident of the 5hilippines in hisfavor on :une 0, $(1 , and confir ed ;+ the Co ission on &ppoint ents of the National

&sse ;l+ on Septe ;er )th of the sa e +ear.

On Nove ;er *, $(1 , the date on hich Co on ealth &ct No. $2', other ise kno n asthe :udicial Reorgani!ation @a , took effect, the petitioner received fro the 5resident of theCo on ealth a ne ad interim appoint ent as judge of first instance, this ti e of the ourth:udicial District, ith authorit+ to preside over the Courts of irst Instance of 4anila and 5ala an,issued in accordance ith said &ct. &s the National &sse ;l+ adjourned on Nove ;er 0=, $(1*,

ithout its Co ission on &ppoint ents having acted on said ad interim appoint ent, another adinterim appoint ent to the sa e office as issued in favor of said petitioner, pursuant to hich hetook a ne oath on Nove ;er 00, $(1*, ;efore discharging the duties thereof. &fter hisappoint ent and 7ualification as judge of first instance of the ourth :udicial District, the petitioner,acting as e6ecutive judge, perfor ed several e6ecutive acts, so e of hich consist in thedesignation of the assistant clerk of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila, @adislao 5asicolan, asad inistrative officer, under the orders of the petitioner, as e6ecutive judge of said court, to takecharge of all atters pertaining to the Court of irst Instance of 5ala an, hich are handled ;+said e6ecute judge in 4anila #E6hi;it 0%/ in the appoint ent of attorne+ Rufo 4. San :uan asnotar+ pu;lic for the 5rovince of 5ala an, said appoint ent to e6pire on Dece ;er 1$, $(1)#E6hi;it 1%/ in having authori!ed justice of the peace IPigo R. 5ePa to defend a cri inal case thehearing of hich had ;egun during the past sessions in Coron, 5ala an #E6hi;it '%/ in havinggranted a leave of a;sence of ten da+s to justice of the peace &;ordo #of 5uerto 5rincesa%,5ala an #E6hi;it )%/ and in having granted a leave of a;sence of thirteen da+s to the justice of thepeace of Coron, 5ala an #E6hi;it (%.

On 4a+ $(, $(1), the Co ission on &ppoint ents of the National &sse ;l+ disapproved theaforesaid ad interim appoint ent of said petitioner, ho as advised thereof ;+ the Secretar+ of

:ustice on the 0=th of said onth and +ear.On &ugust $, $(1), the 5resident of the 5hilippines appointed the herein respondent, ?onora;leSi6to de la Costa, judge of first instance of the ourth :udicial District, ith authorit+ to preside over the ifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila and the Court of irst Instance of 5ala an,and his appoint ent as approved ;+ the Co ission on &ppoint ents of the National &sse ;l+.8+ virtue of said appoint ent, the respondent took the necessar+ oath and assu ed office. On thesa e date, &ugust $, $(1), the 5resident of the 5hilippines, pursuant to said appoint ent of judgeof first instance of the ourth :udicial District and after confir ation thereof, issued thecorresponding final appoint ent in favor of the respondent, ?onora;le Si6to de la Costa #E6hi;it$$%.

Page | 136



3he respondent, in ans er to the petition, ad its so e of the facts alleged therein and denies therest, and alleges, as one of his special defenses, that the petitioner is estopped fro attacking theconstitutionalit+ of Co on ealth &ct No. $2', for having accepted his ne appoint ent as judgeof first instance of the ourth :udicial District, issued ;+ virtue thereof, to preside over the Courts of

irst Instance of 4anila and 5ala an, and for having taken the necessar+ oath, entering into thedischarge of the functions of his office and perfor ing judicial as ell as ad inistrative acts.

3he defense of estoppel ;eing procedural, e shall discuss it first to deter ine hether or not thepetitioner a+ proceed to 7uestion the constitutionalit+ of the la ;+ virtue of hich the ne adinterim appoint ent of judge of first instance of the ourth :udicial District, to preside over theCourts of irst Instance of 4anila and 5ala an, as issued in his favor.

&s stated ;eforehand, hile the petitioner ?onora;le rancisco Mandueta as presiding over theifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila, Ninth :udicial District, ;+ virtue of an

appoint ent issued to hi on :une 0, $(1 , and confir ed ;+ the National &sse ;l+ onSepte ;er )th of the sa e +ear, he received, on Nove ;er *, $(1 , a ne adinterim appoint ent, issued in accordance ith the provisions of Co on ealth &ct No. $2',

hich took effect on the sa e date, to discharge the office of judge of first instance, ourth :udicialDistrict, ith authorit+ to preside over the ifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila andthe Court of irst Instance of 5ala an, upon hich he i ediatel+ took the corresponding oathand entered into the discharge of his office. >nder his for er appoint ent of :une 0, $(1 , thepetitioner had authorit+ preside solel+ over the ifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila;ut not over the Court of irst Instance of 5ala an, hile, according to his ne appoint ent ofNove ;er *, $(1 , he had authorit+ to preside not onl+ over said ifth 8ranch of said Court of irstInstance of 4anila ;ut also over the Court of irst Instance of 5ala an. It should ;e noted that theterritor+ over hich the petitioner could e6ercise and did e6ercise jurisdiction ;+ virtue of his lastappoint ent is ider than that over hich he could e6ercise and did e6ercise jurisdiction ;+ virtueof the for er. ?ence, there is inco pati;ilit+ ;et een the t o appoint ents and, conse7uentl+, inthe discharge of the office conferred ;+ each of the , resulting in the a;sorption of the for er ;+the latter. In accepting this appoint ent and 7ualif+ing for the e6ercise of the functions of the officeconferred ;+ it, ;+ taking the necessar+ oath, and in discharging the sa e, disposing of ;oth

judicial and ad inistrative cases corresponding to the courts of irst Instance of 4anila and of5ala an, the petitioner a;andoned his appoint ent of :une 0, $(1 , and ceased in the e6ercise ofthe functions of the office occupied ;+ hi ;+ virtue thereof.

3he rule of e7uit+, sanctioned ;+ jurisprudence, is that hen a pu;lic official voluntaril+ accepts anappoint ent to an office ne l+ created or reorgani!ed ;+ la , F hich ne office is inco pati;le

ith the one for erl+ occupied ;+ hi F , 7ualifies for the discharge of the functions thereof ;+taking the necessar+ oath, and enters into the perfor ance of his duties ;+ e6ecuting acts inherentin said ne l+ created or reorgani!ed office and receiving the corresponding salar+, he ill ;econsidered to have a;andoned the office he as occup+ing ;+ virtue of his for er appoint ent #2Corpus :uris, (2*, sec. ''%, and he can not 7uestion the constitutionalit+ of the la ;+ virtue of

hich he as last appointed #$$ & erican :urisprudence, $ , par. $0$/ id., * *, par. $01%. ?e ise6cepted fro said rule onl+ hen his non-acceptance of the ne appoint ent a+ affect pu;licinterest or hen he is co pelled to accept it ;+ reason of legal e6igencies #$$ & erican:urisprudence, **=, par. $02%. la%phi?.net

In the case under consideration, the petitioner as free to accept or not the ad interim appoint entissued ;+ the 5resident of the Co on ealth in his favor, in accordance ith said Co on ealth

&ct No. $2'. Nothing or no;od+ co pelled hi to do so. Ahile the office of judge of first instance of pu;lic interest, ;eing one of the eans e plo+ed ;+ the Bovern ent to carr+ out one of itspurposes, hich is the ad inistration of justice, considering the organi!ation of the courts of justicein the 5hilippines and the creation of the positions of judges-at-large or su;stitutes, the te porar+disa;ilit+ of a judge a+ ;e i ediatel+ re edied ithout detri ent to the s ooth running of the

judicial achiner+. If the petitioner ;elieved, as he no see s to ;elieve, that Co on ealth &ctNo. $2' is unconstitutional, he should have refused to accept the appoint ent offered hi or, at

Page | 137



least, he should have accepted it ith reservation, had he ;elieved that his dut+ of o;edience tothe la s co pelled hi to do so, and after ards resort to the po er entrusted ith the finaldeter ination of the 7uestion hether a la is unconstitutional or not. 3he petitioner, ;eing a areof his constitutional and legal rights and o;ligations, ;+ i plied order of the la #art. 0, Civil Code%,accepted the office of judge of first instance of the ourth :udicial District, ith authorit+ to presideover the ifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila and the Court of irst Instance of5ala an and entered into the perfor ance of the duties inherent therein, after taking thenecessar+ oath, there;+ acting ith full kno ledge that if he voluntaril+ accepted the office to hich

he as appointed, he ould later ;e estopped fro 7uestioning the validit+ of said appoint ent ;+alleging that the la , ;+ virtue of hich his appoint ent as issued, is unconstitutional. ?e like isekne , or at least he should kno , that his ad interim appoint ent as su;ject to the approval of theCo ission on &ppoint ents of the National &sse ;l+ and that if said co ission ere todisapprove the sa e, it ould ;eco e ineffective and he ould cease discharging the office.

It appears fro all the foregoing that the petitioner having voluntaril+ a;andoned his appoint entof :une 0, $(1 , and, conse7uentl+, the office of judge of first instance of 4anila, Ninth :udicialDistrict, hose ifth 8ranch as ;eing presided over ;+ hi ;+ virtue thereof, upon acceptingthe ad interim appoint ent of Nove ;er *, $(1 , to the office of judge of first instance of the

ourth :udicial District, ith authorit+ to preside over said ifth 8ranch of the Court of irstInstance of 4anila together ith the Court of irst Instance of 5ala an, and entering into the

discharge of the functions of said office, he can not no clai to ;e entitled to repossess the officeoccupied ;+ hi under his said appoint ent of :une 0, $(1 #00 R. C. @., ' =, par. 0 2%, or7uestion the constitutionalit+ of Co on ealth &ct No. $2', ;+ virtue of hich he has ;eenappointed judge of first instance of the ourth :udicial District, ith authorit+ to preside over the

ifth 8ranch of the Court of irst Instance of 4anila and the Court of irst Instance of 5ala an,hich appoint ent as disapproved ;+ the Co ission on &ppoint ents of the National

&sse ;l+.

?aving arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is estopped ;+ his o n act fro proceeding to7uestion the constitutionalit+ of Co on ealth &ct No. $2', ;+ virtue of hich he as appointed,;+ accepting said appoint ent and entering into the perfor ance of the duties appertaining to theoffice conferred therein, and pursuant to the ell settled doctrine esta;lished ;+ ;oth & erican and5hilippine jurisprudence relative to the consideration of constitutional 7uestions, this court dee s itunnecessar+ to decide the 7uestions constitutional la raised in the petition #Cru! vs. oung;erg,' 5hil., 012/ Aalter E. Olsen and Co. vs. &ldanese and 3rinidad, 21 5hil., 0'(/ angco vs. 8oardof 5u;lic >tilit+ Co issioner, 1 5hil., $$ / Bovern ent of the 5hilippine Islands vs. 4unicipalit+of 8inaPgonan, 12 5hil., '$)/ 4cBirr vs. ?a ilton and &;reu, 1= 5hil., ' 1/ $0 Corpus :uris, ((,section 2=/ id ., *)=, section 0$0%.

or the foregoing considerations, e are of the opinion and so hold hen a judge of first instance,presiding over a ;ranch of a Court of irst Instance of a judicial district ;+ virtue of a legal and validappoint ent, accepts another appoint ent to preside over the sa e ;ranch of the sa e Court of

irst Instance, in addition to another court of the sa e categor+, ;oth of hich ;elong to a ne judicial district for ed ;+ the addition of another Court of irst Instance to the old one, enters intothe discharge of the functions of his ne office and receives the corresponding salar+, hea;andons his old office and cannot clai to ;e to repossess it or 7uestion the constitutionalit+ ofthe la ;+ virtue of hich his ne appoint ent has ;een issued/ and, said ne appoint enthaving ;een disapproved ;+ the Co ission on &ppoint ents of the National &sse ;l+, neithercan he clai to continue occup+ing the office conferred upon hi ;+ said ne appoint ent,having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the functions thereof.

Aherefore, the petition for 7uo arranto instituted is denied and the sa e is dis issed ith coststo the petitioner. So ordered.

Page | 138



# 63 3?IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 78575 August 59, 1989DR. +$ !RS. !ERLIN CONSING, petitioners, vs. T"E COURT O) A EALS +$ CARIDADSANTOS, respondents.

CORTES, J.:

5etitioner 4erlin Consing is the registered o ner of a (, 21 s7. . parcel of land covered ;+ 3ransferCertificate of 3itle #3C3% No. 1$0(*= located in ;arrio 8a+an;a+anan, 4arikina, Ri!al. So eti e in$(*$, Consing caused the su;division of said parcel of land into thirt+-eight #1)% lots and su; itted asu;division plan to the @and Registration Co ission #@RC% hich as approved on :anuar+ 0', $(*$as a si ple su;division plan. Su;se7uentl+, Consing filed a petition for segregation of title and theissuance of separate certificates of title for the 1) lots. In the sa e petition, Consing like ise infor edthe Register of Deeds that he voluntaril+ grants the right of a+ in lots 0, *, ), $1, $2, $(, 0=, 0', 0 , 1$,10, 1', 1 , and 1* GE6h. <1<H. 3he petition for segregation as granted and thereafter, doing ;usinessunder the na e 4earle ?o es, the spouses Consing engaged in the sale of these 1) lots.

On Octo;er 2, $(*$ private respondent Caridad Santos and the Consings entered into an agree entdeno inated as a <Contract of Sale< here;+ the latter agreed to sell, transfer and conve+ to thefor er a house and lot ore particularl+ descri;ed as follo s"

& ne l+ constructed 2 ;edroo s, t o ;athroo s, co plete ith light and ater connections;ungalo , fenced on t o parcels of land #@ot No. 0 of su;division plan #@RC% 5sd $12=*' and@ot No. 0' of su;division plan #@RC% 5sd $12=*', all ;eing a portion of @ot 8 #@RC% 5sd$11 12, @RC Rec No. * *0 containing an area of 3AO ?>NDRED NINE3 O>R #0(2%S >&RE 4E3ERS 3AO ?>NDRED NINE3 IVE #0('% S >&RE 4E3ERS, respectivel+

ore or less including the voluntar+ right of a+, covered ;+ 3C3 No. 1$11) and 3C3 1$11)',respectivel+/ located at 8arrio 8a+an;a+anan, 4unicipalit+ of 4arikina, Ri!al GE6h.<$$<H.

It is stipulated in said <Contract of Sale< that in consideration of the agree ent to sell the ;u+er ill pa+the seller 5 $$=,===.== ith interest at $0W per annu , pa+a;le as follo s" 50',===.== upon thesigning of the contract and a onthl+ install ent of 5 $,=0=.$2 pa+a;le on or ;efore the fifth da+ ofeach onth ;eginning Dece ;er $(*$ ithout necessit+ of de and until the a ount of the purchaseprice and interest shall have ;een full+ paid after hich o nership ould ;e transferred to the ;u+er.Santos paid her onthl+ install ents to the Consings. Starting 4a+ $(*0, ho ever, she defaulted inher pa+ ents. Consing sent her several letters of de and to hich she did not repl+. On :une 0),$(*2, counsel for the Consings sent a final de and letter to Santos asking her to settle her o;ligations

hich ;+ then have accrued to 5l 0,)$). $, other ise, the+ shall ;e constrained to resort to courtlitigation. GRecord, p. $0H.

Santos, represented ;+ a la +er, anifested her illingness to settle her o;ligations on the conditionthat the Consings co pl+ ith all the la s and regulations on su;divisions and after pa+ ent to her ofda ages as a conse7uence of the use of a portion of her lot, ore or less $ ) s7. ., as a su;divisionroad GRecord, p. $1H.

Su;se7uentl+, on :ul+ 0 , $(*2, the Consings filed an eject ent case against Santos. &fter trial, onNove ;er 2, $(*2, judg ent as rendered ;+ :udge Bregorio de la 5a! of the 4unicipal Court of4arikina in favor of the Consings.

It appears, ho ever, that on &ugust 00, $(*2, ith the eject ent case still pending, Santos filed iththe then Court of irst Instance #C I% a co plaint for specific perfor ance ith da ages against theConsings. On 4arch $*, $(*', the C I issued a restraining order enjoining the 4unicipal Court of4arikina fro resolving the otion for e6ecution filed ;+ the Consings in the eject ent case and frotaking further action in said case until further orders fro the C I GRecord, p. (H.

&lso ;orne out ;+ the record is the cri inal co plaint filed ;+ Santos against 4erlin Consing charginghi ith the cri e of Violation of 4unicipal Ordinance No. *, Series of $( 2 of 4arikina for contractingto sell to her the t o lots in 7uestion ithout first securing the approval of the 4unicipal Council of

Page | 139



4arikina for his su;division plan GE6h. <$<H. On 4a+ 0$, $(*' this co plaint as dis issed ;+ the fiscalon the grounds of lack of a pri a facie case and prescription GE6h. <$-;<H.

&t a;out the sa e ti e, Consing su; itted his su;division plan to the 4unicipal Council of 4arikina for approval. 3he council, in turn, referred the sa e to the Depart ent of @ocal Bovern ent andCo unit+ Develop ent #D@BCD% in co pliance ith its 4e orandu Circular No. *1-2$ ofSepte ;er *, $(*1. 3he D@BCD in its second endorse ent dated 4arch $1, $(*', noted that the<su;division plan eets in general the re7uire ents in the su;division regulations of this Office ithrespect to lot areas and lot frontages e6cept the street idths hich are not indicated as road lots and

hich are ;elo the $= . ini u re7uire ent. It is therefore reco ended that the e6isting roadsshould ;e indicated on the plan as road lots and the corresponding areas along the sides of the saidroads as corrected, ;e reserved for future road idening and annotated in the title as such and should;e e6cluded fro the sale of the corresponding affected lots. . . .< GE6h. <D<H

On &ugust 0), $()$, the C I rendered judg ent finding that although the Consings a+ have<corrected the irregularities and or GhaveH co plied ith the legal re7uire ents for the operation of theirsu;division, the+ cannot escape their lia;ilit+ to GSantosH for having sold to her portions of the roads orstreets deno inated as right-of- a+. On this ground alone, this Court ;elieves that GSantosH as full+

justified in refusing to pa+ further her onthl+ a orti!ations. In the interest of justice, fair pla+ ande7uit+, this Court ;elieves that there shall ;e a proportionate reduction of the purchase price of the t olots corresponding to the area of $ ) s7uare eters, ore or less, used as a GrightH of a+.< GRecord, p.2)'H. 3he dispositive portion of the C I decision reads as follo s"

A?ERE ORE, judg ent is here;+ rendered in favor of the plaintiff #Santos%, ordering thedefendants Consings to allo the plaintiff to continue pa+ing her onthl+ a orti!ations of thet o lots in 7uestion of the reduced purchase price of 5 *),1*'. ), after deducting hatevera ounts ere alread+ paid ;+ her.

Defendants are further ordered to pa+ the plaintiff the a ount of 5 $=,===.== as and forattorne+9s fees.

3he restraining order issued against 4unicipal :udge Bregorio C. de la 5a! is ade per anent.

5laintiffs other pra+ers for relief, as ell as defendants9 counterclai , are dis issed, for lack oferit.

Aith costs against the defendants.

SO ORDERED GRecord, p. 2) H.

3he Consings interposed an appeal to the Court of &ppeals hich affir ed the decision of the C I ithodification as to the co putation of the a ount to ;e deducted fro the purchase price. 3he decretal

portion of the C& decision 1 is as follo s"

A?ERE ORE, the appealed decision is here;+ affir ed ith the odification that the reducedpurchase price of the propert+ in 7uestion should ;e, as it is here;+ fi6ed, at 5 (2,1$0.$instead of 5 *),1*'. ). Costs against appellants.

SO ORDERED GC& Decision, pp. $0-$1H.

ro the decision of the Court of &ppeals, petitioner-spouses filed this petition for revie citing the

follo ing reasons h+ the decision of respondent court should ;e revie ed and their petition allo ed"$. 3he decision rendered ;+ the respondent Court of &ppeals in this case does not co pl+ iththe re7uire ents of &rticle VIII, section $1, of the Ne Constitution/

0. It is ar;itrar+ and there is no la to support :udge 5ineda and the respondent Court of &ppeals in holding that hen the Consings constituted a voluntar+ right of a+ on @ots 0' and0 , the portions su;ject to the right of a+ ceased to ;e o ned ;+ the Consings and ;eca estreets or road lots hich the Consings have no right to sell/

1. It is ar;itrar+ and contrar+ to the docu ented facts for the respondent Court of &ppeals to sa+that the portions of @ots 0' and 0 su;ject to a voluntar+ right of a+ are actuall+ used asstreets or roads even though it is clearl+ stated in the lot titles, in the location plans, and in the

Page | 140



contract of sale, that said portions are not streets or roads, ;ut are portions su;ject to voluntar+right of a+, and in spite of the fact that the su;division as approved ;+ the @and RegistrationCo issioner as a si ple su;division plan hich clearl+ sho s that there are no streets orroad lots in the su;division.

2. It is ar;itrar+ for :udge 5ineda and the respondent Court of &ppeals to suppose that theportions of @ots 0' and 0 su;ject to right of a+ are streets or road lots and then co pute thevalue of the said portions in a careless and erroneous anner, deducting after ards the valueso co puted fro the 5 $$=,=== purchase price/ and

'. 3here is no legal or factual ;asis in ordering the Consings to pa+ 5 $=,=== attorne+9s fee toCaridad GRollo, pp. 02-0'H.

3hereafter, private respondent, as re7uired ;+ the Court, filed her &ns er Co ent to hich petitionersfiled their Repl+. On 4a+ 0, $()) the Court, after considering the allegations contained, the issuesraised and the argu ents adduced in the pleadings su; itted ;+ the parties, gave due course to thepetition GRollo, p. )2H.

5etitioners first raise the issue of the Court of &ppeals9 non-co pliance ith the certificationre7uire ent under &rt. VIII, Sec. $1 of the $()* Constitution.

&rt. VIII, Sec. $1 of the $()* Constitution provides that"

Sec. $1. 3he conclusions of the Supre e Court in an+ case su; itted to it for decision enbanc or in division shall ;e reached in consultation ;efore the case is assigned to a 4e ;er forthe riting of the opinion of the Court. ! certification to this effect si(ned by the Chief Justiceshall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the

parties. &n+ 4e ;er ho took no part, or dissented, or a;stained fro a decision or resolutionust state the reason therefor. -he same requirements shall be observed by all lo%er colle(iate

courts . GE phasis suppliedH.

3he first sentence of this provision outlining the decision- aking process of the Supre e Court isadopted fro ;oth the $(1' 5 and $(*1 3 Constitutions. 3he latter Constitution further ;roadened theapplication of the re7uire ent on the decision- aking process ;+ andating that this <shall ;eo;served ;+ all inferior collegiate courts.<

3he certification re7uire ent, ho ever, is a ne provision introduced ;+ the fra ers of the $()*

Constitution. Its purpose is to ensure the i ple entation of the constitutional re7uire ent thatdecisions of the Supre e Court and lo er collegiate courts, such as the Court of &ppeals,Sandigan;a+an and Court of 3a6 &ppeals, are reached after consultation ith the e ;ers of the courtsitting en banc or in a division ;efore the case is assigned to a e ;er thereof for decision- riting. 3hedecision is thus rendered ;+ the court as a ;od+ and not erel+ ;+ a e ;er thereof GI Record of theConstitutional Co ission 2()-'==H, 3his is in keeping ith the ver+ nature of a collegial ;od+ hicharrives at its decisions onl+ after deli;eration, the e6change of vie s and ideas, and the concurrence ofthe re7uired ajorit+ vote.

3he a;sence, ho ever, of the certification ould not necessaril+ ean that the case su; itted fordecision had not ;een reached in consultation ;efore ;eing assigned to one e ;er for the riting ofthe opinion of the Court since the regular perfor ance of official dut+ is presu ed GSec. ' # % of Rule$1$, Rules of CourtH. 3he lack of certification at the end of the decision ould onl+ serve as evidence of failure to o;serve the certification re7uire ent and a+ ;e ;asis for holding the official responsi;le forthe o ission to account therefor GSee I Record of the Constitutional Co ission 2 =H. Such a;sence of certification ould not have the effect of invalidating the decision.

3he second and third assigned errors of petitioners assail the decision of the Court of &ppeals findingthat a portion of @ots 0' and 0 , although called a voluntar+ right of a+, is a su;division road hichthe+ have no right to sell. 3he Consings argue that it is a voluntar+ ease ent hich the+ have a right toconstitute ;+ virtue of &rt. $( of the Ne Civil Code and <G;H+ constituting and esta;lishing a voluntar+right of a+ in said t o lots, the portions su;ject to the voluntar+ right of a+ did not ;eco e streets orroads as held ;+ :udge 5ineda and the respondent Court of &ppeals/ the+ continue to ;e the propert+of the Consings ;ut su;ject to an encu ;rance, i.e. su;ject to an ease ent of right of a+.< G5etition, p.00/ Rollo, p. 0*H. urther, the Consings contend that <the portions of @ots 0' and 0 su;ject to voluntar+

Page | 141



right of a+ can never ;e used as streets or road lots ;ecause GtheirH su;division plan as approved ;+the @and Registration Co issioner as a si ple su;division plan hich eans that there are nostreets or road lots in the su;division, other ise it ould not have ;een approved as GsuchH.< G5etition,p. 02/ Rollo, p. 0(H. In fine, the Consings are alleging that there is no ;asis for the reduction in thepurchase price of the t o lots.

5rivate respondent Santos on the other hand, avers that the alleged right of a+ is actuall+ asu;division road. 3his road is included in the t o lots sold to her and she is deprived of the use andenjo+ ent thereof, hence, a reduction in the purchase price of said lots is in order.

5etitioners9 contentions are devoid of erit. 3he evidence on record negates the Consings9 assertionthat the portions su;ject to the voluntar+ ease ent of right of a+ are not roads. It is undisputed thatthe Consings9 su;division plan as approved ;+ the @RC as a si ple su;division hich indicated nostreets or roads. ?o ever, this does not preclude the need for the ithin the su;division. &ne6a ination of the Consings9 su;division plan reveals that the land is su;divided into 1) lots ith theso-called voluntar+ right of a+ cutting across lots 0 and 1, * and , ) and (,$1 and $0,$2 and $', $(and $), 0= and 0$, 0' and 02, 0 and 0*, 1$ and 1=, 10 and 11. 3he relative position of this <right of

a+< vis-a-vis the lots sho s that it is in fact a road ithout hich the su;division lot ;u+ers ould haveno eans of access to and fro the su;division.

4oreover, as heretofore stated, hen the 4unicipal Council referred the Consings su;division plan tothe D@BCD the latter reco ended that the e6isting roads ithin the su;division should ;e indicated

on the plan as road lots. In turn, the 4unicipal Council of 4arikina passed Resolution No. *= approvingthe su;division plan of 4earle ?o es, Inc. su;ject, ho ever, to several conditions one of hich is thesu;division o ner9s co pliance ith the reco endation of the D@BCD. On 4a+ $(, $(*', 4erlinConsing rote a letter addressed to the 4unicipal 4a+or and 4unicipal Council of 4arikina herein head itted that <the road lots as sho n in the plan originall+ approved ;+ the @and RegistrationCo ission are the Right-of- a+ hich are annotated in the corresponding transfer Certificate of3itles, copies of hich ere supplied or for arded to +our office. 3hese are the road lots

entioned. ...<GE6h.<02<H.

In this sa e letter, 4erlin Consing stated that <the road lots annotated in their corresponding titles &RENO3 INC@>DED in the sale of the propert+.< ?o ever, the transfer certificates of title covering lot 0'and lot 0 clearl+ state the ;oundaries thereof and hen co pared to the Consings9 su;division plan

ould reveal that the seller sold that portion covered ;+ the right of a+ to the ;u+er. urther, the<Contract of Sale< ;et een the parties is specific that the propert+ sold to Santos includes the voluntar+right of a+ GSee E6h. <$$< pertinent portion 7uoted in p. 0 of this decisionH.

In Lim v. 3e los $antos GB.R. No. @-$)$1*, &ugust 1$, $( 1, ) SCR& *()H the Court had occasion tostate one dut+ of a su;division lot seller. In said case the su;division lot ;u+ers instituted an action forspecific perfor ance ith da ages to co pel the sellers to construct the necessar+ roads in thesu;division that ould serve as outlets. 3he sellers9 otion to dis iss on the ground of lack of cause ofaction as sustained ;+ the trial court ;ecause the contract to sell ;et een the parties entioned noo;ligation on the part of the defendants to construct roads. 3he case reached this 3ri;unal and inresolving the issue of hether or not the co plaint stated a cause of action, the Court, speakingthrough 4r. :ustice :8@ Re+es, declared that <GtHhe allegations in the co plaint that defendant-vendor

ade representations that 9she ould have constructed #i.e., ould cause to ;e ;uilt% ade7uate outlets9for the lots sold do not strike us to ;e so i pro;a;le as to justif+ their ;eing dis;elieved de plano. &fterall, a seller s duty is to deliver the thin( sold in a condition suitable for its enjoyment by the buyer for the

purposes contemplated "$ent. -rib. $upreme of $pain, ?@ >ov. ? N8#, and proper access to aresidence is essential to its enjoyment . . . .< Gat )=0/ E phasis suppliedH.

In the case at ;ar, in including as part of Santos9 purchase price the value of the su;division road,petitioners have shifted to her the ;urden of providing for an access to and fro the su;division. 3heConsings have thus failed in their dut+ as su;division lot sellers and for such failure and conse7uentunfairness and injustice to Santos, the latter should ;e entitled to a proportionate reduction in herpurchase price of the t o lots.

Page | 142



5etitioner-spouses also allege that the C& erred in its co putation of the a ount to ;e deducted frothe purchase price of the lots. 3he+ contend that respondent court had no ;asis hen it ade itsco putation and it erel+ assumed the price to ;e deducted.

3he C I9s co putation deducted fro the total purchase price of 5 $$=,===.== the price per s7uareeter of the lots ultiplied ;+ the total area covered ;+ the right of a+ hich is $ ) s7. . In arriving at

the price per s7uare eter of the t o lots, the trial court divided the total purchase price ;+ the totalarea of the t o lots, hich is ')( s7. .

On appeal to the Court of &ppeals, the Consings took e6ception to this ethod of co putation allegingthat the trial court failed to take into account the value of the ;ungalo constructed on the lots and

hich is part of the contract. 3he Court of &ppeals found erit in this allegation and re-co puted theprice per s7uare eter of the t o lots in the follo ing anner"

... 3here is, ho ever, no evidence sho ing the price of the land sold, separatel+ fro that of thehouse erected thereon. 8e that as it a+, it a+ ;e reasona;l+ assu ed under thecircu stances of the case, that one-half #$ 0% of the price of the propert+ corresponds to thehouse and the other half to the lot. >pon this assu ption, the price per s7uare eter of the land# ith a total area of ')( s7uare eters% a+ ;e placed at 5 (1.1), and the price of $ ) s7uare

eters of right of a+ at 5 $', )*.)2 #instead of 51$,1*'. ) stated in the appealed decision%hich is logicall+ and reasona;l+ deducti;le fro the total purchase price due fro the appellee.

In conse7uence, the total reduced purchase price of the su;ject propert+ a+ ;e fi6ed at 5

(2,1$0.$ #or 5 l$=,===.== inus 5 l', )*.)2%. GC& Decision, p. $$H.Indeed, the record is ;ereft of an+ evidence as regards the price of the t o lots sold to Santosseparatel+ fro the price of the ;ungalo constructed thereon. 3he e6hi;its presented ;+ the partiesand their testi onies do not reveal separate valuations of the ;ungalo and the t o lots. Evidenttherefore is the fact that the purchase price of 5$$=,===.== is for ;oth the ;ungalo and the t o lotssold as one propert+. urther, to re7uire the parties to adduce their respective evidence as to theseparate valuations of the properties in 7uestion ould onl+ serve to undul+ dela+ the disposition of thecase. >nder these circu stances, the Court of &ppeals9 co putation that one-half of the purchase priceof 5 $$=,===.== corresponds to the value of the ;ungalo and the other half to the t o lots is ;oth justand fair. &ccordingl+, the Court ill not distur; the sa e.

inall+, petitioners allege that <there is no ;asis for a arding attorne+9s fees to #private respondentH inthis case ;ecause the Consings have not 9acted in gross and evident ;ad faith in refusing to satisf+GSantos9H plainl+ valid, just and de anda;le clai 9 #&rt. 00=), para. ' of the Civil Code of the5hilippines%< G5etition, p. 0 / Rollo, p. 1$H. 3he evidence on record, ho ever, proves other ise. Ahilethe Consings have secured the necessar+ licenses to operate a su;division fro the 4unicipal Councilof 4arikina and the National ?ousing &uthorit+ the+, ho ever, e6erted the effort to o;tain the onl+after private respondent filed a co plaint for specific perfor ance against the . 4oreover, asheretofore entioned, petitioner-spouses constituted an alleged <right of a+< over the t o lots sold toprivate respondent hich as the evidence on record reveals as intended to ;e a su;division roadoccup+ing $ ) s7. . of the total ')( s7. . of the lots sold. 3his conduct on the part of the petitionersclearl+ sho s gross and evident ;ad faith, not to ention lack of fairness, for hich reason affir anceof the a ard of 5 $=,===.== attorne+9s fees in favor of private respondent is in order.

A?ERE ORE, in vie of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of &ppeals is & IR4ED.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 143



# 6 # EN 8&NC

A.!. No. 576 ! (-' 16, 1988RUDENTIAL BANQco plainant, vs. UDGE OSE . CASTRO +$ ATTY. BEN A!IN !.

GRECIA, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O NER CURIA!;

&cting on the <5etition for Redress and E6oneration and for Voluntar+ Inhi;ition< filed ;+ respondent 8enja in 4.Brecia hi self, dated e;ruar+ ), $()), pra+ing that the decision of Nove ;er $0,$()*, and the resolution of thedenial of the otion for reconsideration of the said decision ;e set aside and a ne one entered ;+ this Courtdis issing the ad inistrative co plaint and e6onerating the respondent, the Court RESO@VED #$% the E 5>NBEsaid 5etition, it ;eing in the nature of a second otion for reconsideration filed ithout leave of Court, ;esides thefact that the first otion for reconsideration filed ;+ the sa e respondent had alread+ ;een denied ith finalit+ on:anuar+ $0, $())/ #0% to S3RI E O>3 &nne6 <$< of the 5etition and its e6closures, &nne6 <$< ;eing a 6ero6 cop+of a letter dated =2 &ugust $() ritten ;+ :udge Dionisio N. Capistrano to an unkno n addressee, for ;eingi aterial and i pertinent to this case for dis;ar ent #Sec. ', Rule (, Rules of Court%. 3he Court ill not allothe filing of such kinds of 5etitions &nne6es that are not onl+ irrelevant to the issue and presented out of ti e ashereinafter e6plained, ;ut are also scurrilous and defa ator+.

Certain points raised in the 5etition, ho ever, call for separate treat ent and deter ination.

$% 3he <5etition for Voluntar+ Inhi;ition< of Chief :ustice Claudio 3eehankee and :ustice 3eodoro R. 5adilla isDENIED there ;eing no legal nor factual ;asis therefor. It is settled jurisprudence that after a e ;er has givenan opinion on the erits of the case, a otion to dis7ualif+ a e ;er of the Supre e Court cannot ;e considered;ecause litigant cannot ;e per itted to speculate upon the action of the Court and raise an o;jection of this sortafter decision has ;een rendered #&raneta vs. Dinglasan, )2 5hil. 1 ), citing Bovern ent of the 5hilippine Islandsvs. ?eirs of &;elia, 2( 5hil. 1*2%.

3he decision to dis;ar respondent la +er as the collective judg ent of the Court, ith the e6ception of :usticeSar iento ho had inhi;ited hi self, ith no e ;er in the least ;it atte pting to influence one or the other. Infairness to the Chief :ustice, and to disa;use the fears and suspicions of respondent Brecia, it should ;e ade ofrecord that at no ti e during the deli;erations on the case did the Chief :ustice sho an+ ill ill nor an+ signs of<vindictiveness< uch less an+ atte pt to <e6act vengeance for past affront< against respondent la +er. &lldiscussions ere characteri!ed ;+ judicial o;jectivit+ dictated onl+ ;+ the highest interests of the profession and

pu;lic elfare.Si ilarl+, the plea for the inhi;ition of :ustice 5adilla has to ;e DENIED for ;eing devoid of an+ valid reason.:ustice 5adilla as counsel for Cit+land Develop ent Corporation in the case of 4anchester Develop entCorporation, et al. vs. Court of &ppeals, Cit+land Develop ent Corporation, et al. #B.R. No. *'($(, 4a+*,$()*,$2( SCR& ' 0%, for hich reason he took no part in the said suit. Cit+land, ho ever, is not a part+ in thisad inistrative case.

0% 3he challenge hurled against this Court9s decision as violative of the $()* Constitution due to lack ofcertification ;+ the Chief :ustice that the conclusions of the Court ere reached in consultation ;efore the case

as assigned to a e ;er for the riting of the opinion of the Court, is ;ereft of ;asis. 3he certificationre7uire ent refers to decisions in judicial, not ad inistrative cases. ro the ver+ ;eginning,resolutions decisions of the Court in ad inistrative cases have not ;een acco panied ;+. an+ for al certification.In fact, such a certification ould ;e a superfluit+ in ad inistrative cases, hich ;+ their ver+ nature, have to ;e

deli;erated upon considering the collegiate co position of this Court. 3he certification in &4 No. R-'$=-5 entitled<&polinario de Sarigu ;a vs. Deput+ Sheriff 5asok,< cited in the 5etition, is ;ut an oversight.

8ut even if such a certification ere re7uired, it is ;e+ond dou;t that the conclusions of the Court in its decisionere arrived at after consultation and deli;eration. 3he signatures of the e ;ers ho actuall+ took part in the

deli;erations and voted attest to that. 8esides, ;eing a per curiam decision, or an opinion of the Court as a hole,there is no ponente although an+ e ;er of the Court a+ ;e assigned to rite the draft. In such cases, a for alcertification is o;viousl+ not re7uired.

1% No constitutional provision has ;een disregarded either in the Court9s 4inute Resolution, dated :anuar+$0,$()), den+ing the otion for reconsideration <for lack of erit, the issues raised therein having ;eenpreviousl+ dul+ considered and passed upon.< It ;ears repeating that this is an ad inistrative case so that theConstitutional andate that <no ... otion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall ;e ... denied ithoutstating the legal ;asis therefor< is inapplica;le. &nd even if it ere, said Resolution stated the legal ;asis for the

Page | 144





# 66 3?IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 18 65 O-to>%( , 5010ATTY. ALICE ODC"IGUE BONDOC, 5etitioner, vs. TAN TIONG BIO A.Q.A. "ENRYTAN, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CAR IO !ORALES, J.:

3an 3iong 8io #respondent% had full+ paid the install ent pa+ ents of a )1-s7uare- eter lot in the4anila South oods Residential Estates, a project of il-Estate Bolf Develop ent, Inc. # il-Estate% in Car ona, Cavite, ;ut il-Estate failed to deliver to hi the title covering the lot, despiterepeated de ands. il-Estate also failed to heed the de and for the refund of the purchase price. $

Respondent, later learning that the lot <sold< to hi as ine6istent, 0 filed a co plaint for Estafaagainst il-Estate officials including its Corporate Secretar+ &tt+. &lice Odchigue-8ondoc#petitioner% and other e plo+ees. 1

In her Counter-&ffidavit, petitioner alleged that, inter alia,

6 6 6 6

'. I had no participation at all in the acts or transactions alleged in the Co plaint-&ffidavit. &s aCorporate Secretar+, I have never ;een involved in the anage ent and da+-to-da+ operations ofG il-EstateH. 6 6 6

6 6 6 6.

*. 6 6 6. G?erein respondentH alleges"

<3he letter sho ed that the re7uest as approved ;+ Gherein petitionerH, provided that the transferfee as paid, and that there ;e pa+ ent of full do npa+ ent, ith the ;alance pa+a;le in t o+ears.<

)% 3he hand ritten approval and endorse ent, ho ever, are not ine. I have never transacted,either directl+ or indirectl+, ith 4rs. Ona or Gherein respondentH. 6 6 6 2 #e phasis partl+ in theoriginal, partl+ supplied/ underscoring supplied%

On the ;asis of petitionerKs a;ove-7uoted allegations in her Counter-&ffidavit, respondent filed aco plaint for 5erjur+ against petitioner, docketed as I.S. No. 5SB =1-=*-$$)'' ;efore the 5asigCit+ 5rosecutorKs Office, hich dis issed it ;+ Resolution of :une $*, 0==2 ' for insufficienc+ ofevidence, and denied respondentKs 4otion for Reconsideration.

On petition for revie , the Depart ent of :ustice #DO:%, ;+ Resolution of :ul+ 0=, 0==' signed ;+the Chief State 5rosecutor for the Secretar+ of :ustice, * otu proprio dis issed the petition onfinding that there as no sho ing of an+ reversi;le error, follo ing Section $0#c% of Depart entCircular No. *= dated :ul+ 1, 0=== #National 5rosecution Service GN5SH Rule on &ppeal%.

RespondentKs otion for reconsideration having ;een denied ) ;+ Resolution of :anuar+ 01, 0== ,he filed a petition for certiorari ;efore the Court of &ppeals hich, ;+ Decision of Septe ;er ',0==), ( set aside the DO: Secretar+Ks Resolution, holding that it co itted grave a;use ofdiscretion in issuing its Resolution dis issing respondentKs petition for revie ithout thereine6pressing clearl+ and distinctl+ the facts on hich the dis issal as ;ased, in violation of Section$2, &rticle VIII of the Constitution. $=

3he appellate court ent on to hold that the atter of disposing the petition outright is clearl+delineated, not under Section $0 ;ut, under Section * of the N5S Rule on &ppeal hichcategoricall+ directs the Secretar+ to dis iss outright an appeal or a petition for revie filed afterarraign ent/ and that under Section *, the Secretar+ a+ dis iss the petition outright if he finds

Page | 146

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_186652_2010.html#fnt1






















the sa e to ;e patentl+ ithout erit, or anifestl+ intended for dela+, or hen the issues raisedare too unsu;stantial to re7uire consideration. $$

5etitionerKs 4otion for Reconsideration having ;een denied ;+ the appellate court, she filed thepresent petition for revie on certiorari.

5etitioner asserts that the re7uire ent in Section $2, &rticle VIII of the Constitution applies onl+ todecisions of <courts of justice< $0/ that, citing Solid ?o es, Inc. v. @aserna, $1 the constitutionalprovision does not e6tend to decisions or rulings of e6ecutive depart ents such as the DO:/ and

that Section $0#c% of the N5S Rule on &ppeal allo s the DO: to dis iss a petition for revie otuproprio, and the use of the ord <outright< in the DO: Resolution si pl+ eans <altogether,<<entirel+< or <openl+.<$2

In his Co ent, respondent counters that the constitutional re7uire ent is not li ited to courts,citing 5residential &d hoc act- inding Co ittee on 8ehest @oans v. Desierto, $' as it e6tends to7uasi-judicial and ad inistrative ;odies, as ell as to preli inar+ investigations conducted ;+these tri;unals.

urther, respondent, citing &dasa v. &;alos, $ argues that the DO: < uddled< the distinction;et een Sections * and $0 of the N5S Rule on &ppeal and that an <outright< dis issal is notallo ed since the DO: ust set the reasons h+ it finds no reversi;le error $* in an assailedresolution.

3he petition is i pressed ith erit.

& preli inar+ investigation is not a 7uasi-judicial proceeding since <the prosecutor in a preli inar+investigation does not deter ine the guilt or innocence of the accused.< $)

6 6 6 G& prosecutorH does not e6ercise adjudication nor rule- aking functions. 5reli inar+investigation is erel+ in7uisitorial, and is often the onl+ eans of discovering the persons ho

a+ ;e reasona;l+ charged GofH a cri e and to ena;le the GprosecutorH to prepare his co plaint orinfor ation. It is not a trial of the case on the erits and has no purpose e6cept that of deter ining

hether a cri e has ;een co itted and hether there is pro;a;le cause to ;elieve that theaccused is guilt+ thereof. Ahile the GprosecutorH akes that deter ination, he cannot ;e said to ;eacting as a 7uasi-court, for it is the courts, ulti atel+, that pass judg ent on the accused, not the

GprosecutorH.$(

#e phasis and underscoring supplied% & preli inar+ investigation thus partakes of an investigative or in7uisitorial po er for the solepurpose of o;taining infor ation on hat future action of a judicial nature a+ ;e taken. 0=

8alangauan v. Court of &ppeals 0$ in fact iterates that even the action of the Secretar+ of :ustice inrevie ing a prosecutorKs order or resolution via appeal or petition for revie cannot ;e considereda 7uasi-judicial proceeding since the <DO: is not a 7uasi-judicial ;od+.< 00 Section $2, &rticle VIII ofthe Constitution does not thus e6tend to resolutions issued ;+ the DO: Secretar+.

Respondent posits, ho ever, that 8alangauan finds no application in the present case for, as theSupre e Court stated, the DO: <rectified the shortness of its first resolution ;+ issuing a lengthierone hen it resolved Gthe thereinH respondentGKsH . . . otion for reconsideration.< 01 RespondentKsposition fails.

Ahether the DO: in 8alangauan issued an e6tended resolution in resolving the thereinrespondentKs otion for reconsideration is i aterial. 3he e6tended resolution did not detract frosettling that the DO: is not a 7uasi-judicial ;od+.

RespondentKs citation of 5residential &d hoc act- inding Co ittee on 8ehest @oans isisplaced as the O ;uds an dis issed the therein su;ject co plaint prior to an+ preli inar+

investigation. 3he O ;uds an erel+ evaluated the co plaint pursuant to Section 0, Rule II ofthe Rules of 5rocedure of the Office of the O ;uds an hich reads"

SEC. 0. Evaluation.F>pon evaluating the co plaint, the investigating officer shall reco endhether it a+ ;e"

Page | 147

































a% dis issed outright for ant of palpa;le erit/

;% referred to respondent for co ent/

c% indorsed to the proper govern ent office or agenc+ hich has jurisdiction over the case/

d% for arded to the appropriate officer or official for fact-finding investigation/

e% referred for ad inistrative adjudication/ or

f% su;jected to a preli inar+ investigation. #e phasis supplied%

Respecting the action of the Secretar+ of :ustice on respondentKs petition for revie under Section$0 of the N5S Rule on &ppeal, respondent posits that <outright< dis issal is not sanctionedthereunder ;ut under Section *. RespondentKs position si ilarl+ fails.

3hat the DO: Secretar+ used the ord <outright< in dis issing respondentKs petition for revieunder Section $0 of the Rule hich reads"

SEC. $0. Disposition of the appeal.F3he Secretar+ a+ reverse, affir or odif+ the appealedresolution. ?e a+, otu proprio or upon otion, dis iss the petition for revie on an+ of thefollo ing grounds"

6 6 6 6

#a% 3hat there is no sho ing of an+ reversi;le error/6 6 6 6 #italics in the original/ e phasis and underscoring supplied%

does not dent his action. 3o ;e sure, the ord <outright< as erel+ used in conjunction ith theotu proprio action.

Section * has an altogether different set of grounds for the outright dis issal of a petition forrevie . ?a%phil 3hese are #a% hen the petition is patentl+ ithout erit/ #;% hen the petition is

anifestl+ intended for dela+/ #c% hen the issues raised therein are too unsu;stantial to re7uireconsideration/ and #d% hen the accused has alread+ ;een arraigned in court. 02

Ahen the Secretar+ of :ustice is convinced that a petition for revie does not suffer an+ of theinfir ities laid do n in Section *, it can decide hat action to take #i.e., reverse, odif+, affir or

dis iss the appeal altogether%, confor a;l+ ith Section $0. In other ords, Sections * and $0 arepart of a t o-step approach in the DO: Secretar+Ks revie po er.

&s for respondentKs reliance on &dasa, it too fails for, unlike in the case of &dasa, herein petitionerhas not ;een arraigned as in fact no Infor ation has ;een filed against her.

In the a;sence of grave a;use of discretion on the part of a pu;lic prosecutor ho alonedeter ines the sufficienc+ of evidence that ill esta;lish pro;a;le cause in filing a cri inalinfor ation, 0' courts ill not interfere ith his findings/ other ise, courts ould ;e s a ped ithpetitions to revie the e6ercise of discretion on his part each ti e a cri inal co plaint is dis issedor given due course. 0

A?ERE ORE, the petition for revie on certiorari is BR&N3ED. 3he assailed Decision of the

Court of &ppeals is REVERSED &ND SE3 &SIDE and the Resolutions of :ul+ 0=, 0==' and:anuar+ 01, 0== of the Secretar+ of :ustice are REINS3&3ED.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 148









7 8 Macario ayamura !. IA& 9 no case "ound - -

# 67 IRS3 DIVISION

G.R. No. 88709 )%>(u (2 11, 1995NICOS INDUSTRIAL COR ORATION, UAN CO UINCO +$ CARLOS CO UINCO,petitioners, vs. T"ECOURT O) A EALS, VICTORINO . EVANGELISTA, *+ '*s - -*t2 s E O&&*-*o S'%(*&& o& BUNITED COCONUT LANTERS BANQ, !ANUEL L. CO, GOLDEN STAR INDUSTRIAL COR ORATIO

+$ T"E REGISTER O) DEEDS )OR T"E ROVINCE O) BULACAN, respondents.

CRU4, J.:

Ae are asked once again to interpret the constitutional provision that no decision shall ;e rendered ;+ an+court ithout stating therein clearl+ and distinctl+ the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased, 1 this ti e inconnection ith an order of the trial court sustaining de urrer to the evidence. 5 3he order has ;een affir ed ;+the respondent Court of &ppeals, 3 and the appellant has co e to this Court in this petition for revieon certiorari, invoking the said provision and alleging several reversi;le errors.

In the co plaint filed ;+ the petitioners ;efore the Regional 3rial Court of 8ulacan, it as alleged that on:anuar+ 02, $()=, NICOS Industrial Corporation o;tained a loan of 50,===,===.== fro private respondent

>nited Coconut 5lanters 8ank and to secure pa+ ent thereof e6ecuted a real estate ortgage on t oparcels of land located at 4arilao, 8ulacan. 3he ortgage as foreclosed for the supposed non-pa+ ent ofthe loan, and the sheriff9s sale as held on :ul+ $$, $()1, ithout re-pu;lication of the re7uired notices afterthe original date for the auction as changed ithout the kno ledge or consent of the ortgagor. >C58 asthe highest and lone ;idder and the ortgaged lands ere sold to it for 51,''),'2*. 2. On &ugust 0(, $()1,>C58 sold all its rights to the properties to private respondent 4anuel Co, ho on the sa e da+ transferredthe to Bolden Star Industrial Corporation, another private respondent, upon hose petition a rit ofpossession as issued to it on Nove ;er 2, $()1. On Septe ;er , $()2, NICOS and the other petitioners,as chair an of its ;oard of directors and its e6ecutive vice-president, respectivel+, filed their action for<annul ent of sheriff9s sale, recover+ of possession, and da ages, ith pra+er for the issuance of apreli inar+ prohi;itor+ and andator+ injunction.<

Bolden Star and Victorino 5. Evangelista, as eA officio sheriff of 8ulacan, oved to dis iss the co plaint onthe grounds of lack of jurisdiction, prescription, estoppel, and regularit+ of the sheriff9s sale. Co denied theallegations of the plaintiffs and, like the other defendants, counterclai ed for da ages. In its ans er ithcounterclai , >C58 defended the foreclosure of the ortgage for failure of NICOS to pa+ the loan inaccordance ith its pro issor+ note and insisted that the sheriff9s sale had ;een conducted in accordance

ith the statutor+ re7uire ents.

3he plaintiffs presented t o itnesses, including petitioner Carlos Co7uinco, ho testified at three separatehearings. 3he+ also su; itted 0$ e6hi;its. On &pril 1=, $() , Bolden Star and Evangelista filed a *-pagede urrer to the evidence here the+ argued that the action as a derivative suit that ca e under the

jurisdiction of the Securities and E6change Co ission/ that the ortgage had ;een validl+ foreclosed/ thatthe sheriff9s sale had ;een held in accordance ith &ct 1$1'/ that the notices had ;een dul+ pu;lished in ane spaper of general circulation/ and that the opposition to the rit of possession had not ;een filed onti e. No opposition to the de urrer having ;een su; itted despite notice thereof to the parties, :udgeNestor . Dantes considered it su; itted for resolution and on :une , $() , issued thefollo ing F

O R D E R

&cting on the <De urrer to Evidence< dated &pril 1=, $() filed ;+ defendants Victorino 5.Evangelista and Bolden Star Industrial Corporation to hich plaintiff and other defendants did not filetheir co ent opposition and it appearing fro the ver+ evidence adduced ;+ the plaintiff that theSheriff9s &uction Sale conducted on :ul+ $$, $()1 as in co plete accord ith the re7uire ents ofSection 1, &ct 1$1' under hich the auction sale as appropriatel+ held and conducted and itappearing fro the allegations in paragraph $1 of the plaintiff9s pleading and like ise fro plaintiffCarlos Co7uinco9s o n testi on+ that his cause is actuall+-against the other officers andstockholders of the plaintiff Nicos Industrial Corporation <. . . for the purpose of protecting thecorporation and its stockholders, as ell as their o n rights and interests in the corporation, and the

Page | 149



corporate assets, against the fraudulent ants and devices of the responsi;le officials of thecorporation, in ;reach of the trust reposed upon the ;+ the stockholders . . .< a su;ject atter not

ithin the co petent jurisdiction of the Court, the court finds the sa e to ;e i pressed ith erit.

A?ERE ORE, plaintiff9s co plaint is here;+ dis issed. 3he Defendants9 respective counterclai sare like ise dis issed.

3he Arit of 5reli inar+ Injunction heretofore issued is dissolved and set aside.

It is this order that is no assailed ;+ the petitioners on the principal ground that it violates theafore entioned constitutional re7uire ent. 3he petitioners clai that it is not a reasoned decision and doesnot clearl+ and distinctl+ e6plain ho it as reached ;+ the trial court. 3he+ also stress that the sheriff9s sale

as irregular ;ecause the notices thereof ere pu;lished in a ne spaper that did not have generalcirculation and that the original date of the sheriff9s sale had ;een changed ithout its consent, the sa ehaving ;een allegedl+ given ;+ a person not authori!ed to represent NICOS. It is also contended that theoriginal 50 illion loan had alread+ ;een paid and that if there as indeed a second 50 illion loan alsosecured ;+ the real estate ortgage, it as for >C58 to prove this, as ell as its allegation that NICOS haddefaulted in the pa+ ent of the first 7uarterl+ install ent on the first loan.

3he petitioners co plain that there as no anal+sis of their testi onial evidence or of their 0$ e6hi;its, thetrial court erel+ confining itself to the pronounce ent that the sheriff9s sale as valid and that it had no

jurisdiction over the derivative suit. 3here as therefore no ade7uate factual or legal ;asis for the decisionthat could justif+ its revie and affir ance ;+ the Court of &ppeals.

Rejecting this contention, the respondent court held"In their first assign ent of error, appellants faults the court for its failure to state clearl+ and distinctl+the facts and the la on hich the order of dis issal is ;ased, as re7uired ;+ Section $, Rule 1 , ofthe Rules of Court and the Constitution.

&n order granting a de urrer to the evidence is in fact an adjudication on the erits andconse7uentl+ the re7uire ents of Section $, Rule 1 , is applica;le. Ae are not ho ever prepared tohold that there is a reversi;le o ission of the re7uire ents of the rule in the Order appealed fro , itappearing fro a reading thereof that there is su;stantial reference to the facts and the la on hichit is ;ased.

3he Order hich adverts to the De urrer to the Evidence e6pressl+ referred to the evidenceadduced ;+ the plaintiff as sho ing that the Sheriff9s auction sale conducted on :ul+ $$, $()1, as in

co plete accord ith the re7uisites of Section 1, &ct 1$1' under hich the auction sale asapparentl+ held and conducted. It like ise akes reference to the allegations in paragraph $1 ofplaintiff9s pleadings and plaintiff Carlos Co7uinco9s o n testi on+ that the case is actuall+ againstthe other officers and stockholders of plaintiff NICOS Industrial Corporation and concludes, rightl+ or

rongl+, that the su;ject atter thereof is not ithin the co petent jurisdiction of the Court.

Ae hold that the order appealed fro as fra ed ;+ the court a quo hile leaving uch to ;edesired, su;stantiall+ co plies ith the rules.

3his Court does not agree. 3he 7uestioned order is an over-si plification of the issues, and violates ;oth theletter and spirit of &rticle VIII, Section $2, of the Constitution.

It is a re7uire ent of due process that the parties to a litigation ;e infor ed of ho it as decided, ith ane6planation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. 3he court cannot si pl+sa+ that judg ent is rendered in favor of and against and just leave it at that ithout an+ justification

hatsoever for its action. 3he losing part+ is entitled to kno h+ he lost, so he a+ appeal to a highercourt, if per itted, should he ;elieve that the decision should ;e reversed. & decision that does not clearl+and distinctl+ state the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased leaves the parties in the dark as to ho it asreached and is especiall+ prejudicial to the losing part+, ho is una;le to pinpoint the possi;le errors of thecourt for revie ;+ a higher tri;unal.

It is i portant to o;serve at this point that the constitutional provision does not appl+ to interlocutor+ orders,such as one granting a otion for postpone ent or 7uashing a su;poena, ;ecause it <refers onl+ todecisions on the erits and not to orders of the trial court resolving incidental atters.< &s for the inuteresolutions of this Court, e have alread+ o;served in *orromeo v. Court of !ppeals 6 that F

3he Supre e Court disposes of the ;ulk of its cases ;+ inute resolutions and decrees the asfinal and e6ecutor+, as here a case is patentl+ ithout erit, here the issues raised are factual in

Page | 150



nature, here the decision appealed fro is supported ;+ su;stantial evidence and is in accord iththe facts of the case and the applica;le la s, here it is clear fro the records that the petitions

ere filed erel+ to forestall the earl+ e6ecution of judg ent and for non-co pliance ith the rules.3he resolution den+ing due course or dis issing a petition al a+s gives the legal ;asis.

666 666 666

3he Court is not dut+ ;ound to render signed decisions all the ti e. It has a ple discretion tofor ulate decisions and or inute resolutions, provided a legal ;asis is given, depending on itsevaluation of a case.

3he order in the case at ;ar does not co e under either of the a;ove e6ceptions. &s it is settled that anorder dis issing a case for insufficient evidence is a judg ent on the erits, it is i perative that it ;e areasoned decision clearl+ and distinctl+ stating therein the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased.

It a+ ;e argued that a dis issal ;ased on lack of jurisdiction is not considered a judg ent on the eritsand so is not covered ;+ the aforecited provision. 3here is no 7uarrel ith this esta;lished principle.?o ever, the rule ould ;e applica;le onl+ if the case is dis issed on the sole ground of lack of jurisdictionand not hen so e other additional ground is invoked.

& careful perusal of the challenged order ill sho that the co plaint as dis issed not onl+ for lack of jurisdiction ;ut also ;ecause of the insufficienc+ of the evidence to prove the invalidit+ of the sheriff9s sale.Regarding this second ground, all the trial court did as su aril+ conclude <fro the ver+ evidenceadduced ;+ the plaintiff< that the sheriff9s sale < as in co plete accord ith the re7uire ents of Section 1,

&ct 1$1'.< It did not ;other to discuss hat that evidence as or to e6plain h+ it ;elieved that the legalre7uire ents had ;een o;served. Its conclusion as re arka;l+ thread;are. 8revit+ is dou;tless anad ira;le trait, ;ut it should not and cannot ;e su;stituted for su;stance. &s the ruling on this secondground as un7uestiona;l+ a judg ent on the erits, the failure to state the factual and legal ;asis thereof

as fatal to the order.

Significantl+, the respondent court found that the trial court did have jurisdiction over the case after all. 3hisade even ore necessar+ the factual and legal e6planation for the dis issal of the co plaint on the

ground that the plaintiff9s evidence as insufficient.

In eople v. scober , 7 the trial court in a decision that covered onl+ one and a half pages, single spaced foundthe defendant guilt+ of urder and sentenced hi to death. ?olding that the decision violated the constitutionalre7uire ent, the Court o;served through then &ssociate :ustice 4arcelo 8. ernan"

3he a;ove-7uoted decision falls short of this standard. 3he inade7uac+ ste s pri aril+ fro therespondent judge9s tendenc+ to generali!e and to for conclusions ithout detailing the facts fro

hich such conclusions are deduced. 3hus, he concluded that the aterial allegations of the & ended Infor ation ere the facts ithout specif+ing hich of the testi onies or the e6hi;itssupported this conclusion. ?e rejected the testi on+ of accused-appellant Esco;er ;ecause it asallegedl+ replete ith contradictions ithout pointing out hat these contradictions consist of or hat<vital details< Esco;er could have recalled as a credi;le itness. ?e also found the cri e to ;eattended ;+ the aggravating circu stances of cruelt+, nightti e, superior strength, treacher+, in;and, <a ong others< ;ut did not particularl+ state the factual ;asis for such findings.

Ahile it is true that the case ;efore us does not involve the life or li;ert+ of the defendant, as in Esco;er,there is still no reason for the constitutional short-cut taken ;+ the trial judge. 3he properties ;eing litigatedare not of inconse7uential value/ the+ ere sold for three and a half illion pesos in $()1 and dou;tlesshave considera;l+ appreciated since then, after ore than eight +ears. 3hese facts alone justified a orecareful and thorough drafting of the order, to full+ infor the parties and the courts that ight later ;e calledupon to revie it of the reasons h+ the de urrer to the evidence as sustained and the co plaintdis issed.

In Bomero v. Court of !ppeals, 8 the Court, so e hat reluctantl+, approved a e orandu decision of the Court of &ppeals consisting of2 pages, single-spaced, hich adopted ;+ reference the findings of fact and conclusions of la of the Court of &grarian Relations. Ahile holding that thedecision could ;e considered su;stantial co pliance ith 5D (2 , Section $), 9 and 85 $0(, Section 2=, 10 :ustice :ose . erianevertheless e6pressed the isgiving that <the tendenc+ ould ;e to follo the line of least resistance ;+ justadopting the findings and conclusions of the lo er court ithout thoroughl+ stud+ing the appealed case.<

O;viousl+, the order no ;eing challenged cannot 7ualif+ as a e orandu decision ;ecause it as notissued ;+ an appellate court revie ing the findings and conclusions of a lo er court. Ae note that, contrar+to the i pression of the respondent court, there is not even an incorporation ;+ reference of the evidence

Page | 151



and argu ents of the parties, assu ing this is per itted. No less i portantl+, again assu ing ar(uendo thatsuch reference is allo ed and has ;een ade, there is no i ediate accessi;ilit+ to the incorporated

atters so as to insure their convenient e6a ination ;+ the revie ing court. In 5rancisco v.erms)ul , 11 hich is the latest decision of the Court on the issue no ;efore us, e categoricall+ re7uired"

. . . &lthough onl+ incorporated ;+ reference in the e orandu decision of the regional trial court,:udge 8alita9s decision as nevertheless availa;le to the Court of &ppeals. It is this circu stance, or even happenstance, if +ou ill, that has validated the e orandu decision challenged in this caseand spared it fro constitutional infir it+.

3hat sa e circu stance is hat ill ove us no to la+ do n the follo ing re7uire ent, as acondition for the proper application of Section 2= of 85 8lg. $0(. 3he e orandu decision, to ;evalid, cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of la of the lo er court onl+;+ remote reference, hich is to sa+ that the challenged decision is not easil+ and i ediatel+availa;le to the person reading the e orandu decision. or the incorporation ;+ reference to ;eallo ed, it ust provide for direct access to the facts and the la ;eing adopted, hich ust ;econtained in a state ent attached to the said decision. In other ords, the e orandu decisionauthori!ed under Section 2= of 85 8lg. $0( should actuall+ e ;od+ the findings of fact andconclusions of la of the lo er court in an anne6 attached to and ade an indispensa;le part of thedecision.

It is e6pected that this re7uire ent ill alla+ the suspicion that no stud+ as ade of the decision ofthe lo er court and that its decision as erel+ affir ed ithout a proper e6a ination of the facts

and the la on hich it as ;ased. 3he proAimity at least of the anne6ed state ent should suggestthat such an e6a ination has ;een undertaken. It is, of course, also understood that the decision;eing adopted should, to ;egin ith, co pl+ ith &rticle VIII, Section $2 as no a ount ofincorporation or adoption ill rectif+ its violation.

In scober , the Court o;served that the fla ed decision <should have ;een re anded to the court a quo forthe rendition of a ne judg ent< ;ut decided nevertheless to decide the case directl+, the records ;eingalread+ ;efore it and in deference to the right of the accused to a speed+ trial as guaranteed ;+ the 8ill ofRights. ?o ever, e are not so disposed in the case no ;efore us.

It is not the nor al function of this Court to rule on a de urrer to the evidence in the first instance/ our taskco es later, to revie the ruling of the trial court after it is e6a ined ;+ the Court of &ppeals and, henproper, its decision is elevated to us. In the present case, e find that the respondent court did not have anade7uate ;asis for such e6a ination ;ecause of the insufficienc+ of the challenged order. It ust also ;enoted that e deal here onl+ ith propert+ rights and, although e do not ean to ini i!e the , the+ donot re7uire the sa e urgent action e took in Esco;er, hich involved the ver+ life of the accused. &ll thingsconsidered, e feel that the proper step is to re and this case to the court a quo for a revision of thechallenged order in accordance ith the re7uire ents of the Constitution.

Revie ;+ the Court of the other issues raised, ost of hich are factual, e.(., the allegation of default in thepa+ ent of the loan, the e6istence of a second loan, the nature of the ne spapers here the notices of thesale ere pu;lished, the authorit+ of the person consenting to the postpone ent of the sale, etc., isi practical and unnecessar+ at this ti e. 3hese atters should ;e discussed in detail in the revised order to;e ade ;+ the trial court so that the higher courts ill kno hat the+ are revie ing hen the case isappealed.

In one case, 15 this Court, e6asperated over the inordinate length of a decision rife ith irrelevant details,castigated the trial judge for his <e6traordinar+ ver;iage.< ilo etric decisions ithout uch su;stance ust ;eavoided, to ;e sure, ;ut the other e6tre e, here su;stance is also lost in the ish to ;e ;rief, is no lessunaccepta;le either. 3he ideal decision is that hich, ith elco e econo + of ords, arrives at the factualfindings, reaches the legal conclusions, renders its ruling and, having done so, ends.

A?ERE ORE, the challenged decision of the Court of &ppeals is SE3 &SIDE for lack of ;asis. 3his case isRE4&NDED to the Regional 3rial Court of 8ulacan, 8ranch $=, for revision, ithin 1= da+s fro notice, ofthe Order of :une , $() , confor a;l+ to the re7uire ents of &rticle VIII, Section $2, of the Constitution,su;ject to the appeal thereof, if desired, in accordance ith la . It is so ordered.

Page | 152



# 68 SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 11 353 u=2 53, 1998OIL AND NATURAL GAS CO!!ISSION, petitioner,vs. COURT O) A EALS +$ ACI)ICCE!ENT CO! ANY, INC., respondents. !ARTINE4, J.:

3his proceeding involves the enforce ent of a foreign judg ent rendered ;+ the Civil :udge ofDehra Dun, India in favor of the petitioner, OI@ &ND N&3>R&@ B&S CO44ISSION and againstthe private respondent, 5&CI IC CE4EN3 CO45&N , INCOR5OR&3ED.3he petitioner is a foreign corporation o ned and controlled ;+ the Bovern ent of India hile theprivate respondent is a private corporation dul+ organi!ed and e6isting under the la s of the5hilippines. 3he present conflict ;et een the petitioner and the private respondent has its roots ina contract entered into ;+ and ;et een ;oth parties on e;ruar+ 0 , $()1 here;+ the privaterespondent undertook to suppl+ the petitioner O>R 3?O>S&ND 3?REE ?>NDRED #2,1==%

etric tons of oil ell ce ent. In consideration therefor, the petitioner ;ound itself to pa+ the privaterespondent the a ount of O>R ?>NDRED SEVEN3 -SEVEN 3?O>S&ND 3?REE ?>NDRED>.S. DO@@&RS #Y2**,1==.==% ;+ opening an irrevoca;le, divisi;le, and confir ed letter of credit infavor of the latter. 3he oil ell ce ent as loaded on ;oard the ship 4V S>R>3&N& N&V& at theport of Surigao Cit+, 5hilippines for deliver+ at 8o ;a+ and Calcutta, India. ?o ever, due to adispute ;et een the shipo ner and the private respondent, the cargo as held up in 8angkok anddid not reach its point destination. Not ithstanding the fact that the private respondent had alread+received pa+ ent and despite several de ands ade ;+ the petitioner, the private respondentfailed to deliver the oil ell ce ent. 3hereafter, negotiations ensued ;et een the parties and the+agreed that the private respondent ill replace the entire 2,1== etric tons of oil ell ce ent ithClass <B< ce ent cost free at the petitioner9s designated port. ?o ever, upon inspection, the Class<B< ce ent did not confor to the petitioner9s specifications. 3he petitioner then infor ed theprivate respondent that it as referring its clai to an ar;itrator pursuant to Clause $ of theircontract hich stipulates"

E6cept here other ise provided in the suppl+ order contract all 7uestions and disputes,

relating to the eaning of the specification designs, dra ings and instructions herein ;eforeentioned and as to 7ualit+ of ork anship of the ite s ordered or as to an+ other7uestion, clai , right or thing hatsoever, in an+ a+ arising out of or relating to the suppl+order contract design, dra ing, specification, instruction or these conditions or other iseconcerning the aterials or the e6ecution or failure to e6ecute the sa e duringstipulated e6tended period or after the co pletion a;andon ent thereof shall ;e referred tothe sole ar;itration of the persons appointed ;+ 4e ;er of the Co ission at the ti e ofdispute. It ill ;e no o;jection to an+ such appoint ent that the ar;itrator so appointed is aCo ission e plo+er # sic % that he had to deal ith the atter to hich the suppl+ orcontract relates and that in the course of his duties as Co ission9s e plo+ee he hade6pressed vie s on all or an+ of the atter in dispute or difference.3he ar;itrator to ho the atter is originall+ referred ;eing transferred or vacating hisoffice or ;eing una;le to act for an+ reason the 4e ;er of the Co ission shall appointanother person to act as ar;itrator in accordance ith the ter s of the contract suppl+ order.Such person shall ;e entitled to proceed ith reference fro the stage at hich it as left;+ his predecessor. Su;ject as aforesaid the provisions of the &r;itration &ct, $(2=, or an+Statutor+ odification or re-enact ent there of and the rules ade there under and for theti e ;eing in force shall appl+ to the ar;itration proceedings under this clause.3he ar;itrator a+ ith the consent of parties enlarge the ti e, fro ti e to ti e, to akeand pu;lish the a ard.3he venue for ar;itration shall ;e at Dehra dun. 1

On :ul+ 01, $()), the chosen ar;itrator, one Shri N.N. 4alhotra, resolved the dispute in petitioner9sfavor setting forth the ar;itral a ard as follo s"

Page | 153



NOA 3?ERE ORE after considering all facts of the case, the evidence, oral anddocu entar+s adduced ;+ the clai ant and carefull+ e6a ining the various rittenstate ents, su; issions, letters, tele6es, etc. sent ;+ the respondent, and the oralargu ents addressed ;+ the counsel for the clai ants, I, N.N. 4alhotra, Sole &r;itrator,appointed under clause $ of the suppl+ order dated 0 .0.$()1, according to hich theparties, i .e . 4 S Oil and Natural Bas Co ission and the 5acific Ce ent Co., Inc. can refer the dispute to the sole ar;itration under the provision of the &r;itration &ct. $(2=, do here;+a ard and direct as follo s" F

3he Respondent ill pa+ the follo ing to the clai ant" F$. & ount received ;+ the Respondentagainst the letter of credit No. $$ $(dated 0).0.$()1 >S Y 2**,1==.==

0. Re-i ;urse ent of e6penditure incurred;+ the clai ant on the inspection tea 9svisit to 5hilippines in &ugust $()' >S Y 1,))$.==1. @.C. Esta;lish ent charges incurred;+ the clai ant >S Y $,0'0.)02. @oss of interest suffered ;+ clai antfro 0$. .)1 to 01.*.)) >S Y 2$*,$ (.('

3otal a ount of a ard >S Y )((, =1.**In addition to the a;ove, the respondent ould also ;e lia;le to pa+ to the clai ant theinterest at the rate of W on the a;ove a ount, ith effect fro 02.*.$()) up to the actualdate of pa+ ent ;+ the Respondent in full settle ent of the clai as a arded or the date ofthe decree, hichever is earlier.I deter ine the cost at Rs. *=,=== - e7uivalent to >S Y',=== to ards the e6penses on

&r;itration, legal e6penses, sta ps dul+ incurred ;+ the clai ant. 3he cost ill ;e shared ;+the parties in e7ual proportion.5ronounced at Dehra Dun to-da+, the 01rd of :ul+ $()). 5

3o ena;le the petitioner to e6ecute the a;ove a ard in its favor, it filed a 5etition ;efore theCourt of the Civil :udge in Dehra Dun. India #hereinafter referred to as the foreign court for;revit+%, pra+ing that the decision of the ar;itrator ;e ade <the Rule of Court< in India. 3he

foreign court issued notices to the private respondent for filing o;jections to the petition. 3heprivate respondent co plied and sent its o;jections dated :anuar+ $ , $()(. Su;se7uentl+,the said court directed the private respondent to pa+ the filing fees in order that the latter9so;jections could ;e given consideration. Instead of pa+ing the re7uired filing fees, theprivate respondent sent the follo ing co unication addressed to the Civil judge of DehraDun"

3he Civil :udgeDehra Dun #>.5.% IndiaRe" 4isc. Case No. ' of $()(4 S 5acific Ce ent Co.,Inc. vs. ONBC CaseSir"

$. Ae received +our letter dated 0) &pril $()( onl+ last $) 4a+ $()(.0. 5lease infor us ho uch is the court fee to ;e paid. our letter did not ention thea ount to ;e paid.1. indl+ give us $' da+s fro receipt of +our letter advising us ho uch to pa+ toco pl+ ith the sa e.3hank +ou for +our kind consideration.5acific Ce ent Co., Inc.8+":ose Cortes, :r.5resident 3

Page | 154



Aithout responding to the a;ove co unication, the foreign court refused to ad it the privaterespondent9s o;jections for failure to pa+ the re7uired filing fees, and thereafter issued an Order on

e;ruar+ *, $((=, to it"+B3 B

Since o;jections filed ;+ defendant have ;een rejected through 4isc. Suit No. ' on *.0.(=,therefore, a ard should ;e ade Rule of the Court.

+B3 B & ard dated 01.*.)), 5aper No. 1 8-$ is ade Rule of the Court. On the ;asis of conditions

of a ard decree is passed. & ard 5aper No. 1 8-$ shall ;e a part of the decree. 3heplaintiff shall also ;e entitled to get fro defendant #>SY )((, =1.** #>SY Eight @akhsninet+ nine thousand si6 hundred and three point sevent+ seven onl+% along ith (Winterest per annu till the last date of realisation.

Despite notice sent to the private respondent of the foregoing order and several de ands ;+ thepetitioner for co pliance there ith, the private respondent refused to pa+ the a ount adjudged ;+the foreign court as o ing to the petitioner. &ccordingl+, the petitioner filed a co plaint ith 8ranch1= of the Regional 3rial Court #R3C% of Surigao Cit+ for the enforce ent of the afore entioned

judg ent of the foreign court. 3he private respondent oved to dis iss the co plaint on thefollo ing grounds" #$% plaintiffs lack of legal capacit+ to sue/ #0% lack of cause of action/ and #1%plaintiffs clai or de and has ;een aived, a;andoned, or other ise e6tinguished. 3he petitionerfiled its opposition to the said otion to dis iss, and the private respondent, its rejoinder thereto.On :anuar+ 1, $((0, the R3C issued an order upholding the petitioner9s legal capacit+ to sue,al;eit dis issing the co plaint for lack of a valid cause of action. 3he R3C held that the ruleprohi;iting foreign corporations transacting ;usiness in the 5hilippines ithout a license fro

aintaining a suit in 5hilippine courts ad its of an e6ception, that is, hen the foreign corporationis suing on an isolated transaction as in this case. 6 &nent the issue of the sufficienc+ of thepetitioner9s cause of action, ho ever, the R3C found the referral of the dispute ;et een the partiesto the ar;itrator under Clause $ of their contract erroneous. &ccording to the R3C,

GaH perusal of the shove-7uoted clause #Clause $ % readil+ sho s that the atter covered ;+its ter s is li ited to <&@@ >ES3IONS &ND DIS5>3ES, RE@&3INB 3O 3?E 4E&NINBO 3?E S5ECI IC&3ION, DESIBNS, DR&AINBS &ND INS3R>C3IONS ?EREIN8E ORE 4EN3IONED and as to the >&@I3 O AOR 4&NS?I5 O 3?E I3E4S

ORDERED or as to an+ other 7uestions, clai , right or thing hatsoever, ;ut 7ualified to <IN &N A& &RISINB OR RE@&3INB 3O 3?E S>55@ ORDER CON3R&C3, DESIBN,DR&AINB, S5ECI IC&3ION, etc.,< repeating the enu eration in the opening sentence ofthe clause.3he court is inclined to go along ith the o;servation of the defendant that the ;reach,consisting of the non-deliver+ of the purchased aterials, should have ;een properl+litigated ;efore a court of la , pursuant to Clause No. $' of the Contract Suppl+ Order,herein 7uoted, to it"

<:>RISDIC3ION &ll 7uestions, disputes and differences, arising under out of or in connection ith thissuppl+ order, shall ;e su;ject to the E C@>SIVE :>RISDIC3ION O 3?E CO>R3,

ithin the local li its of hose jurisdiction and the place fro hich this suppl+ order

is situated.<

3he R3C characteri!ed the erroneous su; ission of the dispute to the ar;itrator as a< istake of la or fact a ounting to ant of jurisdiction<. Conse7uentl+, the proceedingshad ;efore the ar;itrator ere null and void and the foreign court had therefore, adopted nolegal a ard hich could ;e the source of an enforcea;le right. 7

3he petitioner then appealed to the respondent Court of &ppeals hich affir ed the dis issal ofthe co plaint. In its decision, the appellate court concurred ith the R3C9s ruling that the ar;itratordid not have jurisdiction over the dispute ;et een the parties, thus, the foreign court could notvalidl+ adopt the ar;itrator9s a ard. In addition, the appellate court o;served that the full te6t of the

judg ent of the foreign court contains the dispositive portion onl+ and indicates no findings of factand la as ;asis for the a ard. ?ence, the said judg ent cannot ;e enforced ;+ an+ 5hilippine

Page | 155



court as it ould violate the constitutional provision that no decision shall ;e rendered ;+ an+ courtithout e6pressing therein clearl+ and distinctl+ the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased. 8 3he

appellate court ruled further that the dis issal of the private respondent9s o;jections for non-pa+ ent of the re7uired legal fees, ithout the foreign court first repl+ing to the privaterespondent9s 7uer+ as to the a ount of legal fees to ;e paid, constituted ant of notice or violationof due process. @astl+, it pointed out that the ar;itration proceeding as defective ;ecause thear;itrator as appointed solel+ ;+ the petitioner, and the fact that the ar;itrator as a for ere plo+ee of the latter gives rise to a presu ed ;ias on his part in favor of the petitioner. 9

& su;se7uent otion for reconsideration ;+ the petitioner of the appellate court9s decision asdenied, thus, this petition for revie on certiorari citing the follo ing as grounds in support thereof"RES5ONDEN3 CO>R3 O &55E&@S BR&VE@ ERRED IN & IR4INB 3?E @OAERCO>R39S ORDER O DIS4ISS&@ SINCE"

&. 3?E NON-DE@IVER O 3?E C&RBO A&S & 4&33ER 5RO5ER@ COBNIM&8@E 83?E 5ROVISIONS O C@&>SE $ O 3?E CON3R&C3/8. 3?E :>DB4EN3 O 3?E CIVI@ CO>R3 O DE?R&D>N, INDI& A&S &N

& IR4&3ION O 3?E &C3>&@ &ND @EB&@ INDINBS O 3?E &R8I3R&3OR &ND3?ERE ORE EN ORCE&8@E IN 3?IS :>RISDIC3ION/C. EVIDENCE 4>S3 8E RECEIVED 3O RE5E@ 3?E E EC3 O & 5RES>453IVERIB?3 >NDER & OREIBN :>DB4EN3. 10

3he threshold issue is hether or not the ar;itrator had jurisdiction over the dispute ;et een thepetitioner and the private respondent under Clause $ of the contract. 3o reiterate, Clause $provides as follo s"

E6cept here other ise provided in the suppl+ order contract all 7uestions and disputes,relating to the eaning of the specification designs, dra ings and instructions herein ;efore

entioned and as to 7ualit+ of ork anship of the ite s ordered or as to an+ other7uestion, clai , right or thing hatsoever, in an+ a+ arising out of or relating to the suppl+order contract design, dra ing, specification, instruction or these conditions or other iseconcerning the aterials or the e6ecution or failure to e6ecute the sa e duringstipulated e6tended period or after the co pletion a;andon ent thereof shall ;e referred tothe sole ar;itration of the persons appointed ;+ 4e ;er of the Co ission at the ti e ofdispute. It ill ;e no o;jection to an+ such appoint ent that the ar;itrator so appointed is a

Co ission e plo+er #sic

% that he had to deal ith the atter to hich the suppl+ orcontract relates and that in the course of his duties as Co ission9s e plo+ee he hade6pressed vie s on all or an+ of the atter in dispute or difference. 11

3he dispute ;et een the parties had its origin in the non-deliver+ of the 2,1== etric tons of oil ellce ent to the petitioner. 3he pri ar+ 7uestion that a+ ;e posed, therefore, is hether or not thenon-deliver+ of the said cargo is a proper su;ject for ar;itration under the a;ove-7uoted Clause $ .3he petitioner contends that the sa e as a atter ithin the purvie of Clause $ , particularl+the phrase, <. . . or as to any other questions, claim, ri(ht or thin( %hatsoever, in any %ay arisin( or relatin( to the supply orderEcontract , design, dra ing, specification, instruction . . .<. 15 It is arguedthat the foregoing phrase allo s considera;le latitude so as to include non-deliver+ of the cargo

hich as a <clai , right or thing relating to the suppl+ order contract<. 3he contention is ;ereft oferit. irst of all, the petitioner has is7uoted the said phrase, shre dl+ inserting a co a

;et een the ords <suppl+ order contract< and <design< here none actuall+ e6ists. &n accuratereproduction of the phrase reads, <. . . or as to an+ other 7uestion, clai , right or thing hatsoever,in an+ a+ arising out of or relating to the supply orderEcontract desi(n, dra%in(, specification,instruction or these conditions . . .<. 3he a;sence of a co a ;et een the ords <suppl+order contract< and <design< indicates that the for er cannot ;e taken separatel+ ;ut should ;evie ed in conjunction ith the ords <design, dra ing, specification, instruction or theseconditions<. It is thus clear that to fall ithin the purvie of this phrase, the <clai , right or thing

hatsoever< ust arise out of or relate to the design, dra ing, specification, or instruction of thesuppl+ order contract. 3he petitioner also insists that the non-deliver+ of the cargo is not onl+covered ;+ the foregoing phrase ;ut also ;+ the phrase, <. . . or other ise concerning the aterials

Page | 156



or the eAecution or failure to eAecute the same during the stipulated e6tended period or afterco pletion a;andon ent thereof . . .<.3he doctrine of noscitur a sociis , although a rule in the construction of statutes, is e7uall+applica;le in the ascertain ent of the eaning and scope of vague contractual stipulations, suchas the afore entioned phrase. &ccording to the a6i noscitur a sociis , here a particular ord or phrase is a ;iguous in itself or is e7uall+ suscepti;le of various eanings, its correct construction

a+ ;e ade clear and specific ;+ considering the co pan+ of the ords in hich it is found orith hich it is associated, or stated differentl+, its o;scurit+ or dou;t a+ ;e revie ed ;+

reference to associated ords.13

& close e6a ination of Clause $ reveals that it covers threeatters hich a+ ;e su; itted to ar;itration na el+,#$% all 7uestions and disputes, relating to the eaning of the specification designs, dra ings andinstructions herein ;efore entioned and as to 7ualit+ of ork anship of the ite s ordered/ or #0% an+ other 7uestion, clai , right or thing hatsoever, in an+ a+ arising out of or relating to thesuppl+ order contract design, dra ing, specification, instruction or these conditions/ or #1% other ise concerning the aterials or the e6ecution or failure to e6ecute the sa e duringstipulated e6tended period or after the co pletion a;andon ent thereof.3he first and second categories un istaka;l+ refer to 7uestions and disputes relating to thedesign, dra ing, instructions, specifications or 7ualit+ of the aterials of the suppl+ order contract.In the third categor+, the clause, <e6ecution or failure to e6ecute the sa e<, a+ ;e read as<e6ecution or failure to e6ecute the supply orderEcontract <. 8ut in accordance ith the doctrineof noscitur a sociis , this reference to the suppl+ order contract ust ;e construed in the light of thepreceding ords ith hich it is associated, eaning to sa+, as ;eing li ited onl+ to the design,dra ing, instructions, specifications or 7ualit+ of the aterials of the suppl+ order contract. 3henon-deliver+ of the oil ell ce ent is definitel+ not in the nature of a dispute arising fro the failureto e6ecute the suppl+ order contract design, dra ing, instructions, specifications or 7ualit+ of the

aterials. 3hat Clause $ should pertain onl+ to atters involving the technical aspects of thecontract is ;ut a logical inference considering that the underl+ing purpose of a referral to ar;itrationis for such technical atters to ;e deli;erated upon ;+ a person possessed ith the re7uired skilland e6pertise hich a+ ;e other ise a;sent in the regular courts.3his Court agrees ith the appellate court in its ruling that the non-deliver+ of the oil ell ce ent isa atter properl+ cogni!a;le ;+ the regular courts as stipulated ;+ the parties in Clause $' of their

contract" &ll 7uestions, disputes and differences, arising under out of or in connection ith this suppl+order, shall ;e su;ject to the eAclusive jurisdiction of the court , ithin the local li its of

hose jurisdiction and the place fro hich this suppl+ order is situated. 1

3he follo ing funda ental principles in the interpretation of contracts and other instru ents servedas our guide in arriving at the foregoing conclusion"

&rt. $1*1. If so e stipulation of an+ contract should ad it of several eanings, it shall ;eunderstood as ;earing that i port hich is ost ade7uate to render it effectual. 16

&rt. $1*2. 3he various stipulations of a contract shall ;e interpreted together, attri;uting thedou;tful ones that sense hich a+ result fro all of the taken jointl+. 1

Sec. $$. nstrument construed so as to (ive effect to all provisions . In the construction of aninstru ent, here there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if

possi;le, to ;e adopted as ill give effect to all.17

3hus, this Court has held that as in statutes, the provisions of a contract should not ;e read inisolation fro the rest of the instru ent ;ut, on the contrar+, interpreted in the light of the otherrelated provisions. 18 3he hole and ever+ part of a contract ust ;e considered in fi6ing the

eaning of an+ of its har onious hole. E7uall+ applica;le is the canon of construction that ininterpreting a statute #or a contract as in this case%, care should ;e taken that ever+ part thereof ;egiven effect, on the theor+ that it as enacted as an integrated easure and not as a hodge-podgeof conflicting provisions. 3he rule is that a construction that ould render a provision inoperativeshould ;e avoided/ instead, apparentl+ inconsistent provisions should ;e reconciled heneverpossi;le as parts of a coordinated and har onious hole. 19

Page | 157



3he petitioner9s interpretation that Clause $ is of such latitude as to conte plate even the non-deliver+ of the oil ell ce ent ould in effect render Clause $' a ere superfluit+. & perusal ofClause $ sho s that the parties did not intend ar;itration to ;e the sole eans of settlingdisputes. 3his is anifest fro Clause $ itself hich is prefi6ed ith the proviso, <E6cept hereother ise provided in the suppl+ order contract . . .<, thus indicating that the jurisdiction of thear;itrator is not all enco passing, and ad its of e6ceptions as a+ ;e provided else here in thesuppl+ order contract. Ae ;elieve that the correct interpretation to give effect to ;oth stipulations inthe contract is for Clause $ to ;e confined to all clai s or disputes arising fro or relating to the

design, dra ing, instructions, specifications or 7ualit+ of the aterials of the suppl+ order contract,and for Clause $' to cover all other clai s or disputes.3he petitioner then asseverates that granting, for the sake of argu ent, that the non-deliver+ of theoil ell ce ent is not a proper su;ject for ar;itration, the failure of the replace ent ce ent toconfor to the specifications of the contract is a atter clearl+ falling ithin the a ;it of Clause $ .In this contention, e find erit. Ahen the 2,1== etric tons of oil ell ce ent ere not deliveredto the petitioner, an agree ent as forged ;et een the latter and the private respondent thatClass <B< ce ent ould ;e delivered to the petitioner as replace ent. >pon inspection, ho ever,the replace ent ce ent as rejected as it did not confor to the specifications of the contract.Onl+ after this latter circu stance as the atter ;rought ;efore the ar;itrator. >ndou;tedl+, hat

as referred to ar;itration as no longer the ere non-deliver+ of the cargo at the first instance ;utalso the failure of the replace ent cargo to confor to the specifications of the contract, a atterclearl+ ithin the coverage of Clause $ .3he private respondent posits that it as under no legal o;ligation to ake replace ent and that itundertook the latter onl+ <in the spirit of li;eralit+ and to foster good ;usinessrelationship<. 50 ?ence, the undertaking to deliver the replace ent ce ent and its su;se7uentfailure to confor to specifications are not an+ ore su;ject of the suppl+ order contract or an+ ofthe provisions thereof. Ae disagree.

&s per Clause * of the suppl+ order contract, the private respondent undertook to deliver the 2,1==etric tons of oil ell ce ent at <8O48& #INDI&% 0$)$ 43 and C&@C>33& 0$$( 43<. 51 3he

failure of the private respondent to deliver the cargo to the designated places re ains undisputed.@ike ise, the fact that the petitioner had alread+ paid for the cost of the ce ent is not contested ;+the private respondent. 3he private respondent clai s, ho ever, that it never ;enefited fro the

transaction as it as not a;le to recover the cargo that as unloaded at the port of8angkok. 55 irst of all, hether or not the private respondent as a;le to recover the cargo isi aterial to its su;sisting dut+ to ake good its pro ise to deliver the cargo at the stipulatedplace of deliver+. Secondl+, e find it difficult to ;elieve this representation. In its 4e orandufiled ;efore this Court, the private respondent asserted that the Civil Court of 8angkok had alread+ruled that the non-deliver+ of the cargo as due solel+ to the fault of the carrier. 53 It is, therefore,;ut logical to assu e that the necessar+ conse7uence of this finding is the eventual recover+ ;+the private respondent of the cargo or the value thereof. Ahat inspires credulit+ is not that thereplace ent as done in the spirit of li;eralit+ ;ut that it as undertaken precisel+ ;ecause of theprivate respondent9s recognition of its dut+ to do so under the suppl+ order contract, Clause $ of

hich re ains in force and effect until the full e6ecution thereof.Ae no go to the issue of hether or not the judg ent of the foreign court is enforcea;le in this

jurisdiction in vie of the private respondent9s allegation that it is ;ereft of an+ state ent of factsand la upon hich the a ard in favor of the petitioner as ;ased. 3he pertinent portion of the judg ent of the foreign court reads"

+B3 B !%ard dated [email protected], aper >o. NE*4? is made Bule of the Court. +n the basis of conditionsof a%ard decree is passed. !%ard aper >o. NE*4? shall be a part of the decree . 3heplaintiff shall also ;e entitled to get fro defendant #>SY )((, =1.** #>SY Eight @akhsninet+ nine thousand si6 hundred and three point sevent+ seven onl+% along ith (Winterest per annu till the last date of realisation. 5

&s specified in the order of the Civil :udge of Dehra Dun, <& ard 5aper No. 1 8-$ shall ;e a part of the decree<. 3his is a categorical declaration that the foreign court adopted the findings of facts and

Page | 158



la of the ar;itrator as contained in the latter9s & ard 5aper. & ard 5aper No. 1 8-$, contains ane6haustive discussion of the respective clai s and defenses of the parties, and the ar;itrator9sevaluation of the sa e. Inas uch as the foregoing is dee ed to have ;een incorporated into theforeign court9s judg ent the appellate court as in error hen it descri;ed the latter to ;e a<si plistic decision containing literall+, onl+ the dispositive portion<. 56

3he constitutional andate that no decision shall ;e rendered ;+ an+ court ithout e6pressingtherein dearl+ and distinctl+ the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased does not preclude the validit+of < e orandu decisions< hich adopt ;+ reference the findings of fact and conclusions of la

contained in the decisions of inferior tri;unals. In 5rancisco v. erms)ul ,5

this Court held that thefollo ing e orandu decision of the Regional 3rial Court of 4akati did not transgress there7uire ents of Section $2, &rticle VIII of the Constitution"

4E4OR&ND>4 DECISION &fter a careful perusal, evaluation and stud+ of the records of this case, this Court herebyadopts by reference the findin(s of fact and conclusions of la% contained in the decision ofthe Metropolitan -rial Court of Ma)ati, Metro Manila, *ranch &N and finds that there is nocogent reason to distur; the sa e.A?ERE ORE, judg ent appealed fro is here;+ affir ed in toto . 57 #E phasis supplied.%

3his Court had occasion to ake a si ilar pronounce ent in the earlier case of Bomero v. Courtof !ppeals , 58 here the assailed decision of the Court of &ppeals adopted the findings anddisposition of the Court of &grarian Relations in this ise"

Ae have, therefore, carefull+ revie ed the evidence and ade a re-assess ent of thesa e, and Ae are persuaded, na+ co pelled, to affir the correctness of the trial court9sfactual findings and the soundness of its conclusion. 5or judicial convenience andeApediency, therefore, Fe hereby adopt by %ay of reference, the findin(s of facts andconclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision, as inte(ral part of this +urdecision . 59 #E phasis supplied%?ence, even in this jurisdiction, incorporation ;+ reference is allo ed if onl+ to avoid thecu ;erso e reproduction of the decision of the lo er courts, or portions thereof, in thedecision of the higher court. 303his is particularl+ true hen the decision sought to ;eincorporated is a length+ and thorough discussion of the facts and conclusions arrived at, asin this case, here & ard 5aper No. 1 8-$ consists of eighteen #$)% single spaced pages.

urther ore, the recognition to ;e accorded a foreign judg ent is not necessaril+ affected ;+ thefact that the procedure in the courts of the countr+ in hich such judg ent as rendered differsfro that of the courts of the countr+ in hich the judg ent is relied on. 31 3his Court has held that

atters of re ed+ and procedure are governed ;+ the leA fori or the internal la of theforu . 35 3hus, if under the procedural rules of the Civil Court of Dehra Dun, India, a valid judg ent

a+ ;e rendered ;+ adopting the ar;itrator9s findings, then the sa e ust ;e accorded respect. Inthe sa e vein, if the procedure in the foreign court andates that an Order of the Court ;eco esfinal and e6ecutor+ upon failure to pa+ the necessar+ docket fees, then the courts in this

jurisdiction cannot invalidate the order of the foreign court si pl+ ;ecause our rules provideother ise.3he private respondent clai s that its right to due process had ;een ;latantl+ violated, first ;+reason of the fact that the foreign court never ans ered its 7ueries as to the a ount of docket fees

to ;e paid then refused to ad it its o;jections for failure to pa+ the sa e, and second, ;ecause ofthe presu ed ;ias on the part of the ar;itrator ho as a for er e plo+ee of the petitioner.3i e and again this Court has held that the essence of due process is to ;e found in thereasona;le opportunit+ to ;e heard and su; it an+ evidence one a+ have in support of one9sdefense 33 or stated other ise, hat is repugnant to due process is the denial of opportunit+ to ;eheard. 3 3hus, there is no violation of due process even if no hearing as conducted, here thepart+ as given a chance to e6plain his side of the controvers+ and he aived his right to do so. 36

In the instant case, the private respondent does not den+ the fact that it as notified ;+ the foreigncourt to file its o;jections to the petition, and su;se7uentl+, to pa+ legal fees in order for itso;jections to ;e given consideration. Instead of pa+ing the legal fees, ho ever, the privaterespondent sent a co unication to the foreign court in7uiring a;out the correct a ount of fees to

Page | 159



;e paid. On the prete6t that it as +et a aiting the foreign court9s repl+, al ost a +ear passedithout the private respondent pa+ing the legal fees. 3hus, on e;ruar+ 0, $((=, the foreign court

rejected the o;jections of the private respondent and proceeded to adjudicate upon the petitioner9sclai s. Ae cannot su;scri;e to the private respondent9s clai that the foreign court violated itsright to due process hen it failed to repl+ to its 7ueries nor hen the latter rejected its o;jectionsfor a clearl+ eritorious ground. 3he private respondent as afforded sufficient opportunit+ to ;eheard. It as not incu ;ent upon the foreign court to repl+ to the private respondent9s rittenco unication. On the contrar+, a genuine concern for its cause should have pro pted the private

respondent to ascertain ith all due diligence the correct a ount of legal fees to ;e paid. 3heprivate respondent did not act ith prudence and diligence thus its plea that the+ ere notaccorded the right to procedural due process cannot elicit either approval or s+ path+ fro thisCourt. 3

3he private respondent ;e ails the presu ed ;ias on the part of the ar;itrator ho as a for ere plo+ee of the petitioner. 3his point deserves scant consideration in vie of the follo ingstipulation in the contract"

. . . . t %ill be no objection any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is aCommission employer "sic# that he had to deal %ith the matter to %hich the supply orcontract relates and that in the course of his duties as Commission s employee he hadeApressed vie%s on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference . 37 #E phasis supplied.%

inall+, e reiterate hereunder our pronounce ent in the case of >orth%est +rient !irlines, nc. v.Court of !ppeals 38 that"

& foreign judg ent is presu ed to ;e valid and ;inding in the countr+ fro hich it co es,until the contrar+ is sho n. It is also proper to presu e the regularit+ of the proceedingsand the giving of due notice therein.>nder Section '=, Rule 1( of the Rules of Court, a judg ent in an action in persona of atri;unal of a foreign countr+ having jurisdiction to pronounce the sa e is presu ptiveevidence of a right as ;et een the parties and their successors-in-interest ;+ a su;se7uenttitle. 3he judg ent a+, ho ever, ;e assailed ;+ evidence of ant of jurisdiction, ant ofnotice to the part+, collusion, fraud, or clear istake of la or fact. &lso, under Section 1 ofRule $1$, a court, hether of the 5hilippines or else here, enjo+s the presu ption that it

as acting in the la ful e6ercise of jurisdiction and has regularl+ perfor ed its official

dut+.39

Conse7uentl+, the part+ attacking a foreign judg ent, the private respondent herein, hadthe ;urden of overco ing the presu ption of its validit+ hich it failed to do in the instantcase.

3he foreign judg ent ;eing valid, there is nothing else left to ;e done than to order itsenforce ent, despite the fact that the petitioner erel+ pra+s for the re and of the case to theR3C for further proceedings. &s this Court has ruled on the validit+ and enforcea;ilit+ of the saidforeign judg ent in this jurisdiction, further proceedings in the R3C for the reception of evidence toprove other ise are no longer necessar+.A?ERE ORE, the instant petition is BR&N3ED, and the assailed decision of the Court of &ppealssustaining the trial court9s dis issal of the OI@ &ND N&3>R&@ B&S CO44ISSION9s co plaint inCivil Case No. 2== ;efore 8ranch 1= of the R3C of Surigao Cit+ is REVERSED, and another in its

stead is here;+ rendered ORDERINB private respondent 5&CI IC CE4EN3 CO45&N , INC. topa+ to petitioner the a ounts adjudged in the foreign judg ent su;ject of said case.SO ORDERED.

Page | 160





can act on all cases filed ;efore it and, accordingl+, discharge its constitutional functions. 3he Courtordinaril+ acts on the incidents or ;asic erits of three hundred #1==% to four hundred #2==% cases through itsDivisions ever+ 4onda+ and Aednesda+ hen the Divisions eet and on one hundred #$==% to onehundred t ent+ #$0=% cases ever+ 3uesda+ and 3hursda+ that it eets en ;anc or around one thousand#$,===% cases a eek. It is onl+ on rida+s/ and eek-ends that the e ;ers of the Court ork in theirseparate cha ;ers or at ho e ;ecause the Court does not eet in session--either in Divisions or En 8anc.

or a pro pt dispatch of actions of the Court, inute resolutions are pro ulgated ;+ the Court through theClerk of Court, ho takes charge of sending copies thereof to the parties concerned ;+ 7uoting ver;ati theresolution issued on a particular case. It is the Clerk of Court9s dut+ to infor the parties of the action takenon their cases ;+ 7uoting the resolution adopted ;+ the court. 3he Clerk of Court never participates in thedeli;erations of case. &ll decisions and resolutions are actions of the Court. 3he Clerk of Court erel+trans its the Court9s action. 3his as e6plained in the caseFB.R. No. ' 0)=, < Bhine Mar)etin( Corp. v.5eliA Gravante, et al .<, here, in a resolution dated :ul+ , $()$, the Court saidF<G4Hinute resolutions of thisCourt den+ing or dis issing un eritorious petitions like the petition in the case at ;ar, are the result of athorough deli;eration a ong the e ;ers of this Court, hich does not and cannot delegate the e6ercise of its judicial functions to its Clerk of Court or an+ of its su;alterns, hich should ;e kno n to counsel. Ahen apetition is denied or dis issed ;+ this Court, this Court sustains the challenged decision or order together

ith its findings of facts and legal conclusions.<

In B.R. No. * 1'', Macario -ayamura, et al. v. ntermediate !ppellate Court, et al. #4a+ 0$, $()*%, the Courtclarified the constitutional re7uire ent that a decision ust e6press clearl+ and distinctl+ the facts and laon hich it is ;ased as referring onl+ to decisions. Resolutions disposing of petitions fall under theconstitutional provision hich states that, <No petition for revie ... shall ;e refused due course ... ithoutstating the legal ;asis therefor< #Section $2, &rticle VIII, Constitution%. Ahen the Court, after deli;erating ona petition and an+ su;se7uent pleadings, anifestations, co ents, or otions decides to den+ due courseto the petition and states that the 7uestions raised are factual or no reversi;le error in the respondent court9sdecision is sho n or for so e other legal ;asis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient co pliance ith theconstitutional re7uire ent.

4inute resolutions need not ;e signed ;+ the e ;ers of the Court ho took part in the deli;erations of acase nor do the+ re7uire the certification of the Chief :ustice. or to re7uire e ;ers of the court to sign allresolutions issued ould not onl+ undul+ dela+ the issuance of its resolutions ;ut a great a ount of theirti e ould ;e spent on functions ore properl+ perfor ed ;+ the Clerk of court and hich ti e could ;e

ore profita;l+ used in the anal+sis of cases and the for ulation of decisions and orders of i portant natureand character. Even ith the use of this procedure, the Court is still struggling to ipe out the ;acklogsaccu ulated over the +ears and eet the ever increasing nu ;er of cases co ing to it. Re edial-legislation to eet this pro;le is also pending in Congress.

In discharging its constitutional duties, the Court needs the fun ti e and attention of its Clerks of Court andother ke+ officials. Its officers do not have the ti e to ans er frivolous co plaints filed ;+ disgruntledlitigants 7uestioning decisions and resolutions of the Court and involving cases deli;erated upon andresolved ;+ the Court itself. &s earlier stated, all resolutions and decisions are actions of the Court, not itssu;ordinate personnel. 3he Court assu es full responsi;ilit+" for all its acts. Its personnel cannot ans erand should not ;e ade to ans er for acts of the Court.

IN VIEA O 3?E OREBOINB, all private la practitioners, govern ent, la +ers, govern ent prosecutors,and :udges of trial courts are ORDERED to the selves ith the a;ove procedures and to refrain fro filing,taking cogni!ance of, and other ise taking part in harass ent suits against officers of the Supre e Courtinsofar as the latter are sought to ;e held lia;le for decisions, resolutions, and other actions of the Supre eCourt and or its :ustices. Instead, all such co plaints against resolutions, decisions, and other actions of theSupre e Court ust ;e for arded to the Court itself for re edial or other appropriate action. &n+ violationof this order ;+ a e ;er of the 8ar or the judiciar+ sho s gross ignorance of the la and shall constitute aground for appropriate proceedings. In this particular case, :udge Rafael R. ;aPe!, 5residing :udge of theRegional 3rial Court of Ce;u, 8ranch $), is here;+ ORDERED to >&S? the su ons issued and toDIS4ISS Civil Case No. CE8-) *(. ?e is further DIREC3ED not to issue su ons or other ise entertaincases of si ilar nature hich a+ in the future ;e filed in his court.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 162





In its second otion for reconsideration, petitioner no tries a different tack ;+ lecturing this Courton its theor+ that the inute resolutions it assails are supposedl+ in violation of Section $2, &rticle VIIIof the present Constitution. In characteristic fashion, it insinuates that such procedure adopted ;+ thisCourt is a culpa;le constitutional violation and can ;e su;ject of i peach ent proceedings. 5etitioner is, of course, free to ;elieve and act as it pleases just as this Court a+ like ise ;e inded to take theappropriate sanctions, for hich purpose it ould do ell for all and sundr+ to no i ;i;e theconsistent doctrines laid do n ;+ this Court.

&s earl+ as >ovino, et al. vs. Court of !ppeals, et al, G'H it has ;een stressed that these resolutions

are not decisions ithin the a;ove constitutional re7uire ents/ the+ erel+ hold that the petition for revie should not ;e entertained and even ordinar+ la +ers have all this ti e so understood it/ and thepetition to revie the decision of the Court of &ppeals is not a atter of right ;ut of sound judicialdiscretion, hence there is no need to full+ e6plain the Courts denial since, for one thing, the facts andthe la are alread+ entioned in the Court of &ppeals decision.

3his as reiterated in ue vs. eople, et al. ,G H and further clarified in Munal vs. Commission on !udit, et al .G*H that the constitutional andate is applica;le onl+ in cases su; itted for decision, i.e.,given due course and after the filing of ;riefs or e oranda and or other pleadings, ;ut not here thepetition is refused due course, ith the resolution therefore stating the legal ;asis thereof. 3hus, henthe Court, after deli;erating on a petition and su;se7uent pleadings, decides to den+ due course to thepetition and states that the 7uestions raised are factual or there is no reversi;le error in the respondentcourts decision, there is sufficient co pliance ith the constitutional re7uire ent. G)H

or, as e6pounded ore in detail in *orromeo vs. Court of !ppeals , et al. OG(H

3he Court re inds all lo er courts, la +ers, and litigants that it disposes of the ;ulk of its cases ;+inute resolutions and decrees the as final and e6ecutor+, as here a case is patentl+ ithout erit,here the issues raised are factual in nature, here the decision appealed fro is supported ;+

su;stantial evidence and is in accord ith the facts of the case and the applica;le la s, here it is clear fro the records that the petition is filed erel+ to forestall the earl+ e6ecution of judg entand for non-co pliance ith the rules. 3he resolution den+ing due course or dis issing the petition al a+s givesthe legal ;asis. &s e phasi!ed in n Be" Fenceslao Laureta #$2) SCR& 1)0, 2$* G$()*H%, G3Hhe Courtis not dut+ ;ound to render signed Decisions all the ti e. It has a ple discretion to for ulate Decisionsand or 4inute Resolutions, provided a le(al basis is (iven , depending on its evaluation of a case #Italicssupplied%. 3his is the onl+ a+ here;+ it can act on all cases filed ;efore it and, accordingl+ dischargeits constitutional functions. 6 6 6.

6 6 6

In B.R. No. * 1'', Macario -ayamura, et al. v. ntermediate !ppellate Court, et al . #4a+ 0$, $()*%, theCourt clarified the constitutional re7uire ent that a decision ust e6press clearl+ and distinctl+ the factsand la on hich it is ;ased as referring onl+ to decisions. Resolutions disposing of petitions fall underthe constitutional provision hich states that, No petition for revie 6 6 6 shall ;e refused due course 66 6 ithout stating the legal ;asis therefor #Section $2, &rticle VIII, Constitution%. Ahen the Court, afterdeli;erating on a petition and an+ su;se7uent pleadings, anifestations, co ents, or otionsdecides to den+ due course to the petition and states that the 7uestions raised are factual or noreversi;le error in the respondent court9s decision is sho n or for so e other legal ;asis stated in theresolution, there is a sufficient co pliance ith the constitutional re7uire ent.

3he course of action adopted ;+ the Court in disposing of this case through its t o resolutions,after a thorough revie of the issues and argu ents of the parties in the plethora of pleadings the+have filed, is not onl+ in accord ith ;ut is justified ;+ this fir and realistic doctrinal rule"

6 6 6 3he Supre e Court is not co pelled to adopt a definite and stringent rule on ho its judg entshall ;e fra ed. It has long ;een settled that this Court has discretion to decide hether a inuteresolution should ;e used in lieu of a full-;lo n decision in an+ particular case and that a inuteResolution of dis issal of a 5etition for Revie on Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the merits ofthe controvers+ or su;ject atter of the 5etition. It has ;een stressed ;+ the Court that the grant of duecourse to a 5etition for Revie is not a atter of right, ;ut of sound judicial discretion/ and so there isno need to full+ e6plain the Courts denial. or one thing, the facts and la are alread+ entioned in theCourt of &ppeals opinion. & inute Resolution den+ing a 5etition for Revie of a Decision of the Court

Page | 164

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/127682.htm#_edn5















of &ppeals can onl+ ean that the Supre e Court agrees ith or adopts the findings and conclusionsof the Court of &ppeals, in other ords that the decision sought to ;e revie ed and set aside is correct.G$=H

3hat this Court as full+ justified in handing do n its inute resolution ;ecause it agrees ith or adopts the findings and conclusions of the Court of &ppeals since the decision sought to ;e revie edand set aside is correct, is ;est de onstrated and appreciated ;+ reproducing the salientpronounce ents of respondent court on the real issues actuall+ involved in this case. 3he aterialholdings in its decision G$$H of :une 0), $(( are as follo s"

3he facts of the case as found ;+ the trial court are as follo s"So eti e in $(*', NIDC granted I5I a direct loan of Eight 4illion 5esos #5),===,===.==% anda 3 o 4illion ##50,===,===.==% guarantee to secure 5N8.#E6h. 4 of petitioner and E6h. 00 ofrespondent 5N8 and intervenor S@DC, 3.S.N. Octo;er $2, $((0 pp. $(-0)%. &s securit+ thereof,a Deed of Real Estate 4ortgage dated &pril 02, $(*' as e6ecuted ;+ 5etitioner I5I in favor of NIDC, covering, a ong others, a parcel of land ith all its i prove ents e ;raced in andcovered ;+ 3C3 NO. 2 (*1* of the Registr+ of Deeds of the 5rovince of Ri!al #no 4akati,4etro 4anila%. &t the instance of Respondent 5N8 and ith the confor it+ of its su;sidiar+,NIDC, in order to secure the o;ligation of 5etitioner I5I under Respondent 5N8s deferredletter of credit for >SY$,' 2,)0 .== in favor of 3o+ota 3susho aisha @td., :apan, 5etitioner I5Ie6ecuted an & end ent of 4ortgage Deed dated :une 0$, $(*) covering the sa e parcel of

land and its i prove ents under 3C3 No. 2 (*1* on a pari passu ;asis in favor of Respondent5N8 and NIDC. #E6hi;it ?, ?-$ to ?-(%. >pon full pa+ ent of 5etitioner I5Is account ithNIDC and the 50.= 4 Credit @ine ith Respondent 5N8, NIDC e6ecuted a Deed of Release andCancellation of 4ortgage G$0H dated :anuar+ *, $()$ releasing the ortgage on 3C3 No. 2 (*1*#E6hi;it $ to $-2 of 5etitioner and E6hi;its * to *-D of Respondent 5N8 and IntervenorS@DC%. In this Deed of Release and Cancellation of 4ortgage, it is provided a ong the

hereases that Ahereas, the credit acco odations had ;een full+ paid ;+ the 8orro er to the5hilippine National 8ank #5N8% and NIDC. #E6h. $-'%. 8+ virtue of this full pa+ ent and thee6ecution of the Deed of Release and Cancellation of 4ortgage, NIDC returned the o nerscop+ of the 3C3 No. 2 (*1* of the petitioner and accordingl+ the Deed of Release andCancellation of 4ortgage as registered ith the Registr+ of Deed on :anuar+ 0),$()$. #E6hi;its E to E-'% #sic% that there ere so e accounts chargea;le to 5etitioner I5I on

deferred letters of credit opened and esta;lished in $(*2 and $(*' settled ;+ Respondent 5N8ith the foreign suppliers in $(*) and $(*( ;ut ca e to the kno ledge of Respondent 5N8 onl+in $()$ and $()0 #E6hi;its 0$-$ to 0$-@. 3.S.N. 4a+ 0=, $((0 pp. $ -1=%.

In a letter to 5etitioner I5I dated 4arch 1$, $((0, Respondent 5N8 re7uested for the return ofthe o ners cop+ of 3C3 No. 2 (*1* #E6h. 00%. On :ul+ *, $()0 in a letter addressed to 4r.Ricardo C. Silverio, then 5resident of 5etitioner I5I, Respondent 5N8 reiterated for the returnof the aforesaid 3C3 NO. 2 (*1* #E6h. 00-&% and the said title as returned to Respondent5N8.

On 4a+ *, $()0, Respondent 5N8 filed a 5etition for Correction of Entr+ and &dverse Claiith the office of the Registr+ of Deeds of 4akati, 4etro 4anila and as a;le to have the sa e

annotated at the ;ack of 3C3 No. 2 (*1* #E6h. ( joint e6hi;it of Respondent 5N8 andIntervenor S@DC%.

On Nove ;er 0, $()1, Respondent 5N8 filed ith the E6-Officio Sheriff of 4akati, 4etro 4anilaa 5etition of Sale >nder &C3 $'=), as a ended ;+ 5.D. 1)' to e6tra-judiciall+ foreclose variousproperties ;elonging to 5etitioner ;+ virtue of a Chattel 4ortgage ith 5o er of &ttorne+ dated:une 0$, $(*) #E6hi;its : to :-2%.

On Nove ;er 0', $()1, 5etitioner I5I received an undated Notice of Sheriffs Sale to the effectthat the land covered ;+ 3C3 No. 2 (*1* ould ;e foreclosed e6tra-judiciall+ on Dece ;er $(,$()1 at ("== a. . #E6h. to -0%.

6 6 6

Page | 165












" ;% Buarantee in the a ount of 50,===,===.== issued in favor of 5N8 to secure the Credit @ine of the4OR3B&BOR ith 5N8

5N8 " >S Y$,' 2,)0 .== or e7uivalent in 5hilippine Currenc+ ;+ a+ of deferred @etter of Credit issued;+ 5N8 in favor of 3o+oda 3susho aisha @td., :apan, thru Repu;lic National 8ank of Ne ork, N. .

plus interest and charges as ell as all other o;ligations, hether direct or indirect, pri ar+ orsecondar+, as appearing in the respective 8ooks of &ccount of NIDC and 5N8 and other reasona;lee6penses and charges arising thereunder, hether such o;ligations have ;een contracted ;efore,during or after date hereof. Su;ject to condition No. 2 herein;elo , in case the 4OR3B&BOR e6ecutesu;se7uent pro issor+ note or notes either as rene al of the for er note, an e6tension thereof, asne loan, or is given an+ kind of acco odations such as overdraft, letters of credit, acceptance and;ills of e6change, release of i port ship ents, on trust receipts etc., this ortgage shall also stand assecurit+ for the pa+ ent of said pro issor+ notes or notes and or acco odations ithout necessit+ of e6ecuting ne contract and this ortgage shall have the sa e force and effect as if the saidpro issor+ notes or notes and or acco odations ere e6isting on the date hereof. ?o ever, if the4OR3B&BOR shall pa+ to the 4OR3B&BEES, their successors or assigns the o;ligations secured ;+this ortgage, together ith interest, costs and other e6penses on or ;efore the date the+ are due andshall keep and perfor all the covenants and agree ents herein contained for the 4OR3B&BOR thenthis ortgage shall ;e null and void, other ise, it shall re ain in full force and effect. #pp. '- ,Record%.

It is clear that the reference to the credit acco odations consisting of 5),===,===.== direct loanand 50,===,===.== guarantee entioned in the third hereas clause of the Deed of Release as having;een full+ paid ;+ the ;orro er %as to these t%o obli(ations obtained from > 3C, and not to the otherobli(ation described in the !mended Mort(a(e as pertainin( to >* directly, arisin( from the issuanceof the deferred letter of credit in the amount of /$ P?,'&7,D6&.88 , the e6press inclusion of hicho;ligation in the & ended 4ortgage cannot ;e ignored. It is e7uall+ clear that NIDC %as in no positionto state that ;omatsus direct obli(ation to >* has been fully paid . &nd on the ;asic proposition a;ove-stated that the deed of release e6ecuted ;+ NIDC cannot ;ind its joint ortgagee, hich is an entirel+different entit+, Ae find that the court a 7uo erroneousl+ invoked the 1 rd hereas clause stating that thecredit acco odations had ;een full+ paid ;+ the 8orro er to the 5hilippine National 8ank #5N8% andNIDC.

Ae are thus una;le to accept the trial courts reasoning that the release e6ecuted ;+ NIDC illnecessaril+ include the ortgage to 5N8. 3he h+pothesis that NIDC ;eing a holl+ o ned su;sidiar+ of its joint ortgagee could not have e6ecuted the Deed of Release and Cancellation of 4ortgage ithoutthe kno ledge and consent of respondent 5N8, its other co pan+, has no support in la and

jurisprudence. Neither does the evidence of record sho that an+ confir ation or ratification of therelease of ortgage as ade ;+ the 5N8. Nothing short of an actual pa+ ent of the de;t or ane6press release ill operate to discharge a ortgage #'' & . :ur. 1(2%.

Defendants-appellants also 7uestion the trial courts ruling that even granting that 5N8s clai is correctthat insofar as it is concerned, the ortgage as not released it ;eing separate entit+ and the ortgage;eing on a pari passu ;asis, the e6trajudicial foreclosure should ;e to the e6tent onl+ of itsproportionate credit.

Ae do not agree that the e6trajudicial foreclosure of the ortgage on the hole 5asong 3a o propert+

is null and void. ! mort(a(e is indivisible in nature, so that payment of a part of the secured debt doesnot eAtin(uish the entire mort(a(e #See 5aras, Civil Code &nno., $((' ed., Vol. V, p. $=22/ &rt. 0=)(,Civil Code%. 3here is also no language in the ortgage instru ent to indicate other ise, i.e. that the

ortgage of the 5asong 3a o propert+ is divisi;le, so that in case of the pa+ ent of the o;ligation toone ortgagee the ortgage ould su;sist onl+ to the e6tent of the re aining lien of the other

ortgagee. -he mort(a(e instrument contemplated not only obli(ations eAistin( on the date thereof,but also future obli(ations or accommodations appearin( in the respective *oo)s of !ccount of > 3Cand >*, thus renderin( it unli)ely and impractical for the parties to have intended a division of themort(a(ed property in accordance %ith the proportionate credits of the t%o joint mort(a(ors.

3he case of Central 8ank of the 5hilippines vs. Court of &ppeals #$1( SCR& 2 % cited ;+ the court a7uo is not in point. It refers to a ortgage of one parcel of land in favor of one ortgagee, here there

Page | 167



as a failure of consideration, i.e., the entire a ount of the loan as not released to the ortgagor andthe ortgage as thus held to ;e enforcea;le onl+ to the e6tent of the a ount of the loan that asreleased. 3he factual situation in this case is o;viousl+ different. 3he ortgage here is not ;eingenforced for ore than the actual su due.

Aith respect to the courts pronounce ent that the 5etition for Correction of Entr+ or &dverse Claicannot ;e ade as ;asis of an+ foreclosure proceeding, suffice it to point out that the records ;ear outdefendants-appellants clai that the >* filed a verified petition for eAtrajudicial foreclosure under !ct>o. N?N' pursuant to the provisions of the !mendment of Mort(a(e 3eed #Records, pp. $2)0 to

$2(1%. 3he 5etition for Sale under &ct No. 1$1', as a ended, dated Octo;er ), $()1, as ade the;asis for the issuance of the Notice of Sheriffs sale #E6hs. ( to (-d, (-e to (-;;;, (-ccc o atsu/ E6hs.$=, $2 to $2-;, $', $* 5N8, S@DC%. 3he plaintiff-appellee has not controverted the veracit+ of thesedocu ents either in the court ;elo or in its &ppellees ;rief. &ccordingl+, Ae rule that since the

ortgage in favor of 5N8 is still su;sisting, the sheriffs sale on the ;asis of the petition for e6trajudicialforeclosure is valid.

inall+, consistentl+ ith Our a;ove ruling relative to the validit+ of the foreclosure proceedings and thenon-;inding effect of the Deed of Release e6ecuted ;+ the National Invest ent and Develop entCorporation in so far as the ortgage in favor of the appellant 5hilippine National 8ank isconcerned. Ae rule that the appellee o atsu Industries #5hil.% Inc. is not entitled to an+ a ard ofda ages pursuant to the principle of damnum absque injuria , i.e. there ight have ;een a loss #on thepart of the appellee- ortgagor% arising fro the foreclosure ;ut said loss does not create a ground oflegal redress. & loss or da age hich does not constitute the violation of a legal right or a ount to alegal rong is damnum absque injuria G?u+ong ?ian vs. Court of &ppeals, '( SCR& $12/ Bilchrist vs.Cudd+, 0( 5hil. '2)H. #Italics supplied%

Conse7uentl+, respondent court reversed and set aside the judg ent of the trial court in Civil CaseNO. '('* and declared legal and valid the irst Notice of Sheriffs Sale dated Nove ;er $0, $()1, theSecond Notice of Sheriffs Sale dated &pril , $()2, the E6trajudicial oreclosure 5roceedings held andconducted thereunder, the Certificate of Sale dated 4a+ $*, $()2 and the registration thereof, the inalDeed of Sale, its registration and the 3ransfer Certificate of 3itle issued to respondent 5hilippineNational 8ank as the highest and lone ;idder, the Deed of Sale in favor of and the 3ransfer Certificateof 3itle issued to the intervenor Santiago @and Develop ent Corporation.

5etitioners su;se7uent otion for reconsideration as denied ;+ respondent court in itsresolution G$1H of :anuar+ $2, $((*, fro hich e 7uote the follo ing pertinent e6cerpts"3he otion for reconsideration has no erit.

Ae reiterate our ruling that the Deed of Release e6ecuted solel+ ;+ National Invest ent andDevelop ent Corporation did not operate to release the real estate ortgage e6ecuted in favor ofappellant 5hilippine National 8ank as e ;odied in the & end ent of 4ortgage Deed. 3his issue asfull+ discussed in our decision and Ae find no su;stantial argu ent in the otion for reconsideration,the petitioner-appellees e orandu or at the hearing, that ould arrant a reversal of our previousfindings.

t is evident that the 3eed of Belease pertains only to the mort(a(e eAecuted in favor of the >ationalnvestment and 3evelopment Corporation %hose credit has been fully paid. nsofar as the mort(a(e

eAecuted in favor of >* is concerned, the same subsists as the credit in the amount of P?,'&7,D6&.88remained unpaid . Contrar+ to appellees su; ission, the Deed of Release e6ecuted ;+ the NationalInvest ent and Develop ent Corporation is not an e6ercise in futilit+ for said docu ent actuall+released the inde;tedness due to the National Invest ent and Develop ent Corporation consisting ofan 5),===,===.== direct loan and 50,===,===.== guarantee loan.

5etitioner-appellee su; its that in the light of &rticle 0=)( of the Civil Code, the & end ent of4ortgage Deed is null and void, and there as no valid ortgage in favor of 5N8. ?ence hen theDeed of Release cancelled the onl+ valid ortgage in favor of National Invest ent Develop entCorporation, there as no ore ortgage left to ;e foreclosed ;+ 5hilippine National 8ank.

Ae do not agree.

Page | 168






&t the outset, Ae note that the legalit+ and validit+ of the & end ent of 4ortgage Deed as never putin issue ;efore the trial court nor as it raised in the appeal proper. If ell recogni!ed jurisprudenceprecludes raising an issue onl+ for the first ti e on appeal proper, ith ore reason should such issue;e disallo ed or disregarded hen initiall+ raised onl+ in a otion for reconsideration of the decision ofthe appellate court G4anila 8a+ Clu; Corporation vs. Court of &ppeals, 02( SCR& 1=1H.

&t an+ rate, Ae are not inclined to uphold appellees contention that the & end ent of 4ortgage Deed# hich is the ;asis of the ortgage in favor of the 5N8% is null and void on the argu ent that &rticle0=)( of the Civil Code prohi;its a situation here t o or ore creditors, ith separate and distinct

credits secured a ortgage over a single propert+.3here is nothing in &rticle 0=)( of the Civil Code that prohi;its the ortgagor fro ortgaging the sa epropert+ for a separate and distinct de;t in favor of another creditor. n this jurisdiction, the mort(a(or isallo%ed to obtain subsequent loans by means of subsequent and successive mort(a(es on the same

property. Ae further agree ith appellant that if an o ner- ortgagor can enter into second and furtherortgages, there is no la that prohi;its the ortgagor and the ortgagee fro agreeing that theortgages ould ;e pari-passu. Ahat is proscri;ed ;+ &rticle 0=)( is for a de;tor ho has ortgaged

his propert+ to secure a de;t, to de and that the ortgage ;e released in proportion to the a ount ofthe de;t he has paid. >nder the said article, the ortgagor has to pa+ the de;t in full ;efore he can askfor the release of the ortgage. 3his is co pati;le ith the principle that a ortgage is indivisi;le.

Our ruling that the e6trajudicial foreclosure of the ortgage on the hole 5asong 3a o propert+ is valid

since the ortgage is indivisi;le in nature is not inconsistent ith our state ent that the Deed ofReleased e6ecuted solel+ ;+ National Invest ent and Develop ent Corporation did not operate torelease the real estate ortgage e6ecuted in favor of appellant 5hilippine National 8ank. -he fact thatthe 3eed of Belease eAecuted by the >ational nvestment and 3evelopment Corporation did notoperate to release the real estate mort(a(e in favor of appellant hilippine >ational *an), does notrender the mort(a(e divisible. ndeed, foreclosure of the property in its entirety by hilippine >ational*an) is necessary because of the indivisible nature of a mort(a(e . 3he fact that there are t oo;ligations secured ;+ the sa e ortgaged propert+ does not render the ortgage divisi;le. 3heindivisi;ilit+ of the ortgage or pledge does not affect the divisi;ilit+ of the principal o;ligation.Ahen thesa e thing is pledged or ortgaged to several creditors, the indivisi;ilit+ of the pledge or ortgageentitled each and ever+ creditor to the sa e action against the thing hich is lia;le in its entiret+ for theindividual share of each creditor. GCivil Code of the 5hilippines, ;+ 3olentino, Vol. V, pp. '1)-'1(, $((0

Ed.H.3he rest of the argu ents of the appellee in its otion for reconsideration are ere rehash of hathave ;een raised in its ;rief and ere alread+ full+ considered and discussed in our decision.#E phasis ours%

In the sa e anner, e readil+ found that, despite the length+ and repetitious su; issions of petitioner in its pleadings filed ith this Court as earlier enu erated, all the argu ents therein are also

ere rehashed versions of hat it posited ;efore respondent court. Ae have patientl+ given petitionerspostulates the corresponding thorough and o;jective revie ;ut, on the real and proper issues soco pletel+ and co petentl+ discussed and resolved ;+ respondent court, petitioners o;viousconvolutions of the sa e argu ents are evidentl+ unavailing. It ust ;e noted that its recourse torespondent court as ;+ appeal on rit of error, hence the preceding 7uotation in eAtenso of saidcourts decision readil+ sho s ho the real issues ere correctl+ particulari!ed and su ari!ed to

eet petitioners assign ent of errors, and then a;l+ adjudicated on ;oth evidential and legal grounds.

5etitioner has co e to this Court this ti e on appeal ;+ certiorari and it ust ;e a are of theele entar+ rule that, as e phasi!ed in the decisions previousl+ cited, a revie thereunder is not a

atter of right ;ut of sound judicial discretion, and ill ;e granted onl+ hen there are special andi portant reasons therefor .G$2H ?ere, there is no novel 7uestion of su;stance nor has respondent courtdecided the case contrar+ to la or our applica;le decisions. On the contrar+, it acted ithco enda;le fealt+ to the sa e, and that is the other reason h+ e e6tensivel+ reproduced thepertinent discussions in its challenged decision.

&ll these not ithstanding, petitioner still co es up ith another supposed issue, this ti e faultingrespondent court for allegedl+ not resolving the 7uestion of hether or not petitioner is entitled to

Page | 169






redee its foreclosed propert+ fro respondent 5hilippine National 8ank in the event the foreclosurethereof is held to ;e valid. Ae agree ith respondents o;servation that this atter is not proper at thisstage of the case since it as never raised in the co plaint or ad itted as an issue at the pre-trial, ;ut

as raised onl+ in petitioners e orandu ;efore the trial court. G$'H &lso, respondents point out that theperiod of rede ption had long lapsed since the sheriffs certificate of sale as registered on 4a+ $*,$()2 and, citing applica;le authorities, the one-+ear rede ption period is not suspended ;+ an actionfor nullification of the auction sale.

Ahat is ore telling against petitioners ne proposition, ho ever, is the docu ented fact that as

earl+ as &pril $*, $()', it e6ecuted a Deed of &ssign ent of Right of Rede ption over the propert+ in7uestion in favor of &tt+. Nor;erto :. uisu ;ing. G$ H In fact, the e6ercise of such right of rede ption ;+the assignee is involved in Civil Case No. $=' of the Regional 3rial court of 4akati, and the side issueof the right of respondent Santiago @and Develop ent Corporation to intervene therein as decided ;+this Court in B.R. NO. $= $(2. On ;oth su;stantive and procedural considerations, therefore,petitioners presentation of that so-called issue in the present appellate stage is an undue i position onthe ti e of this Court.

Ae have stated, at the outset, that petitioners second otion for reconsideration could have ;eencorrectl+ rejected outright. 8ut, as further noted, petitioner has distressingl+ adopted the la enta;letechni7ue contrived ;+ losing litigants of resorting to ascriptions of supposed irregularities in the courtsof justice as the cause for their defeat. ?ere, petitioner speaks of pressure having ;een e plo+ed ;+respondents against the trial court. It then proceeds to insinuate ano alous haste on the part of respondent court in reversing the trial court, pointing to the supposed short period of ti e it took thefor er to co e out ith its decision. It never even ;othered to ention that the issues are actuall+ ver+si ple, that the evidence is ;asicall+ docu entar+, and that the 7uestions raised are easil+ ans ered;+ appl+ing settled doctrines of this Court.

On top of that, it no veers to ards this Court, spinning the +arn that retired :ustice 3eodoro5adilla first approached the ponente to ho its petition had ;een raffled, and asked for a dispositionin favor of respondents as a ;irthda+ and parting gift/ that said ponente declined and unloaded the casesuch that it as again raffled to a good friend of :ustice 5adilla. 3he records, ho ever, sho that thiscase as directl+ raffled to the Second Division on :anuar+ 0), $((* and there as no prior ponente to

ho it as assigned ho then supposedl+ unloaded it/ and under the internal rules of this Court,hen a case is unloaded, there is no need for holding a second raffle.

5etitioner could have rendered a signal service to the judiciar+ if it had onl+ verified and proved thefacts it purve+ed ;ut hich are no ;elied even just ;+ the internal rules of this Court, of hichpetitioner appears to ;e ignorant hence the valor of his denunciation. 3he e ;ers of the SecondDivision of this Court vehe entl+ den+ and denounce the ani adversion on their allegedl+ having ;eenapproached ;+ :ustice 5adilla regarding this case. 3he 5adilla @a Office, counsel for respondentprivate corporation, has su; itted its response to the i putations against it, thus calling for petitioner toprove its charges. 3he sa e ;urden is also i posed upon petitioner to prove its charges. 3he sa e;urden is also i posed upon petitioner for the aspersions it has cast upon respondent Court of

&ppeals. Ae, therefore, leave it to the aforesaid la fir , :ustice 3eodoro 5adilla and the Court of &ppeals, on the one hand, and to herein petitioner, on the other, to decide for the selves hether tofurther pursue this incident in the proper proceedings.

On such contingenc+, this Court ill content itself for the nonce ith a stern ad onition thatpetitioner refrain fro conduct tending to create istrust in our judicial s+ste through innuendos on

hich no evidence is offered or indicated to ;e proffered. Responsi;le litigants need not ;e told thatonl+ pleadings for ulated ith intellectual honest+ on facts dul+ ascertained can su;serve the ends of

justice and dignif+ the cause of the pleader.

"ERE)ORE , petitioners second otion for reconsideration is here;+ DENIED for lack of eritand E 5>NBED as an unauthori!ed pleading. 3his resolution is i ediatel+ final and e6ecutor+, andno further pleadings or otions ill ;e entertained.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 170







# 5 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. L 36 15 1 u+% 57, 1973NORBERTO !ENDO4A, petitioner, vs. COURT O) )IRST INSTANCE O) UE4ON, NINT"

UDICIAL DISTRICT, GU!ACA BRANC", RESIDED OVER BY T"E "ONORABLE UAN!ONTECILLO, +$ T"E ROVINCIAL ARDEN O) UE4ON ROVINCE,respondents.

R E S O @ > 3 I O N )ERNANDO, J.:

Our resolution of :anuar+ 0 , $(*1 dis issing these petitions for habeascorpus , certiorari and mandamus for lack of erit is sought to ;e reconsidered. It as our rulingthat petitioner failed to sustain the ;urden of sho ing that his confine ent as arked ;+ illegalit+or that the order cancelling the ;ail previousl+ issued as tainted ith grave a;use of discretion. Itis to credit of his a;le counsel, for er Senator Estanislao ernande!, that his fight for provisionalli;ert+ is carried on ith a further anifestation of skilled scholarl+ effort, ;ut such valiant atte pt tosecure his release is doo ed to fail. 3he la , as ill hereafter ;e set forth, points to the contrar+.Deference to its co and precludes a reconsideration. 3his resolution ill like ise ;riefl+ touchupon the 7uestion of h+ the issuance of a ;rief dis issal order does not in an+ ise offendagainst the constitutional provision re7uiring that no decision <shall ;e rendered ;+ an+ court ofrecord ithout on hich it is ;ased.< 1

$. Habeas corpus could ;e invoked ;+ petitioner if he ere a;le to sho the illegalit+ of hisdetention. 3here is aptness and accurac+ in the characteri!ation of the rit of ha;eas corpus asthe rit of li;ert+. Rightfull+ it is latitudinarian in scope. It is ide-ranging and all e ;racing in itsreach. It can dig deep into the facts to assure that there ;e no toleration of illegal restraint.Detention ust ;e for a cause recogni!ed ;+ la . 3he rit i poses on the judiciar+ the graveresponsi;ilit+ of ascertaining hether a deprivation of ph+sical freedo is arranted. 3his it has todischarge ithout loss of ti e. 3he part+ ho is keeping a person in custod+ has to produce hi incourt as soon as possi;le. Ahat is ore, he ust justif+ the action taken. Onl+ if it can ;ede onstrated that there has ;een no violation of one9s right to li;ert+ ill he ;e a;solved froresponsi;ilit+. >nless there ;e such a sho ing, the confine ent ust there;+ cease.3he a;ove for ulation of hat is settled la finds no application to the present situation.5etitioner9s deprivation of li;ert+ is in accordance ith a arrant of arrest properl+ issued after adeter ination ;+ the judge in co pliance ith the constitutional provision re7uiring the e6a inationunder oath or affir ation of the co plainant and the itnesses produced. 5 No allegation to thecontrar+ a+ ;e entertained. It cannot ;e denied that petitioner9s co-accused, Nelso >nal,?er ogenes @u anglas and @eopoldo 3rinidad, had previousl+ co e to this court to challenge thefiling of one infor ation here there ere three victi s. &ccordingl+, this Court, in /nal v.

eople , 3 re7uired three separate a ended infor ations. 3here as no 7uestion, ho ever, as tothe legalit+ of the arrants of arrest previousl+ issued, not onl+ in the case of the parties in suchpetition, ;ut like ise of petitioner. ?a;eas corpus, under the circu stances, ould not therefore

lie.<

0. Even if it ;e granted that petitioner a+ not ;e released on a ha;eas corpus proceeding, is he,ho ever, entitled to ;ailL 5recisel+ that is the re ed+ ;+ hich, not ithstanding the a;sence ofan+ fla in one9s confine ent, provisional li;ert+ a+ still ;e had. Such a re ed+, as a atter offact, as granted hi in accordance ith an order of the unicipal court of 4ulana+. 3hereafter,ho ever, the ;ail as revoked ;+ the Court of irst Instance in the order no challenged. Suchactuation he ould no conde n as a grave a;use of discretion. In the land ark decision of Chief :ustice Concepcion, eople v. Hernandez , 6 the right to ;ail as rightfull+ stress as an aspect of theprotection accorded individual freedo hich, in his elo7uent language,< is too ;asic, tootranscendental and vital in a repu;lican state, like ours, ....< 3o ;e ore atter of fact a;out it,there is this e6cerpt fro de la Camara v. na(e 7 <8efore conviction, ever+ person is ;aila;le

Page | 171



e6cept if charged ith capital offense hen the evidence of guilt is strong. Such a right flo s frothe presu ption of innocence in favor of ever+ accused ho should not ;e su;jected to the loss offreedo as thereafter he ould ;e entitled to ac7uittal, unless his guilt ;e proved ;e+ondreasona;le dou;t. 3here;+ a regi e of li;ert+ is honored in the o;servance and not in the ;reach.It is not ;e+ond the real of pro;a;ilit+, ho ever, that a person charged ith a cri e, especiall+ so

here his defense is eak, ould just si pl+ ake hi self scarce and thus frustrate the hearing of his cage. & ;ail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent ould ;e th arted. It is, in thelanguage of Coole+, a ode short of confine ent hich ould, ith reasona;le certaint+, insure

the attendance of the accused for the su;se7uent trial. Nor is there an+thing unreasona;le inden+ing this right to one charged ith a capital offense hen evidence of guilt is strong, as thelikelihood is, rather than a ait the outco e of the proceeding against hi ith a death sentence,an ever-present threat, te ptation to flee the jurisdiction ould ;e too great to ;e resisted.< 8

3he precise 7uestion ho ever, is hether once the provisional li;ert+ has ;een thus o;tained, itcould ;e ter inated ;+ the cancellation of the ;ail. In the ans er filed on ;ehalf of respondentCourt, Solicitor Beneral Estelito 4endo!a did stress the a;sence of authorit+ on the part of specialcounselor &ntonio R. Ro;les ho as not authori!ed to intervene in this case on ;ehalf of the state;ut did so, his failure to o;ject ;eing the ;asis of the ;ail granted ;+ the unicipal court of4ulana+, ue!on. Such an allegation as denied ;+ petitioner. Ae are not called upon to ruledefinitel+ on this aspect as independentl+ thereof, there are t o other ;asic o;jections. One as

that petitioner, hen the ;ail as granted, as still at large. 3he unicipal court, therefore, couldnot have granted ;ail in accordance ith our ruling in 5eliciano v. asicolan . 9 3hus" <93heconstitutional andate that all persons shall ;efore conviction ;e ;aila;le e6cept those charged

ith capital offenses hen evidence of guilt is strong, is su;ject to the li itation that the personappl+ing for ;ail should ;e in custod+ of the la , or other ise deprived of his li;ert+. 3he purpose of ;ail is to secure one9s release and it ould ;e incongruous as to grant ;ail to one ho isfree.9<10 Secondl+, and hat is orse, the prosecution as never given a chance to present itsevidence. 3he authoritative doctrine in eople v. $an 3ie(o 11 is thus s7uarel+ in point" <Ahetherthe otion for ;ail of a defendant ho is in custod+ for a capital offense ;e resolved in su ar+proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution ust ;e given an opportunit+ topresent, ithin a reasona;le ti e, all the evidence that it a+ desire to introduce ;efore the Courtshould resolve the otion for ;ail. If, as in the cri inal case involved in the instant special civil

action, the prosecution should ;e denied such an opportunit+, there ould ;e a violation ofprocedural due process, and order of the Court granting ;ail should ;e considered void.< 15

Nor is the San Diego ruling novel. &s far ;ack as $('), in eople v. Baba , 13 it as held"<Considering that 3alantor did not serve notice of his otion to reduce ;ail on the provincial fiscalat least three da+s ;efore the hearing thereof and the court failed to re7uire that a reasona;lenotice thereof ;e given to said fiscal, it is evident that the court acted i properl+ in reducing the;ail ithout giving the fiscal an opportunit+ to ;e heard< 1 :ust after San Diego, this Court hadoccasion to stress ane such a principle in eople v. *ocar . 16 &s set forth in the opinion of :ustice:.8.@. Re+es" <It cannot ;e denied that, under our regi e of la s, and conco itant ith the legalpresu ption of innocence ;efore conviction, an accused is entitled to provisional li;ert+ on ;ail, theonl+ e6ception ;eing hen he is charged ith a capital offense and the evidence of his guilt is

strong. 8ut even in the latter instance, the high regard reserved ;+ the la for personal freedo isunderscored ;+ the provision placing upon the prosecution, not on the defense, the ;urden ofproving that the accused is not entitled to ;ail. 3his protective attitude to ards the sanctit+ of theli;ert+ of a person not ithstanding, due process also de ands that in the atter of ;ail theprosecution should ;e afforded full opportunit+ to present proof of the guilt of the accused. 3hus, ifit ere true that the prosecution in this case as deprived of the right to present its evidenceagainst the ;ail petition, or that the order granting such petition as issued upon inco pleteevidence, then the issuance of the order ould reall+ constitute grave a;use of discretion that

ould call for the re ed+ of certiorari .<1

Page | 172



3he last sentence in the a;ove e6cerpt finds application in the atter ;efore us. No grave a;use of discretion +o justif+ the grant of the rit certiorari pra+ed for has ;een sho n. 3hat is h+ ourresolution sought to ;e reconsidered should stand.

1. 3hat ;rings us to the point raised in the otion for reconsideration o;jecting to our dis issingthe petition through a inute resolution. It is his contention that there should ;e an e6tendeddecision. &s noted at the outset, reliance is had on the constitutional provision re7uiring a decision;+ a court of record to contain <clearl+ and distinctl+ the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased.<

&ccording to a recent decision, Jose v. $antos , 17 hat is e6pected of the judiciar+ <is that thedecision rendered akes clear h+ either part+ prevailed under the applica;le la to the facts asesta;lished. Nor is there an+ regid for ula as to the language to ;e e plo+ed to satisf+ there7uire ent of clarit+ and distinctness. 3he discretion of the particular judge in this respect, hilenot unli ited, is necessaril+ ;road. 3here is no sacra ental for of ords hich he ust use uponpain of ;eing considered as having failed to a;ide ;+ hat the Constitution directs.< 18 Ahat ustthen ;e stressed is that under such a provision as held in the earl+ case of $oncuya v. >ational

nvestment *oard , 19 the decision spoken of is the judg ent rendered after the previouspresentation of the proof in an ordinar+ civil or cri inal case upon a stipulation of facts upon hichits disposition is to ;e ;ased. In *acolod Murcia Millin( Co., nc. v. Henares , 50 the a;ove decision

as cited ith approval, ith the opinion of :ustice :.8.@. Re+es containing the follo ing. <5laintiff-appellant assigns as another error that the order appealed fro does not contain an+ state ent of

the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased. O;viousl+, this is ;ased on Section $, Rule 1' of theRules of Court, and Section $0, &rticle VIII of the Constitution. 3he contention is untena;le, sincethese provisions have ;een held to refer onl+ to decisions of the erit and not to orders of the trialcourt resolving incidental atters such as the one at ;ar.< 51

It is thus not self-evident that petitioner could justl+ la+ clai to a grievance. or if the situation issu;jected, to searching anal+sis, it cannot ;e denied that hat is reall+ involved is just a ereincident in the prosecution of petitioner ?ad he prevailed, he ould have ;een entitled toprovisionar+ li;ert+. >nder the circu stances, as the facts of the clearl+ de onstrate, ith the pleafor ha;eas corpus ;e unavailing, e felt that a inute resolution hich certainl+ ould re7uire lessti e than a full-;lo n decision, as not inappropriate. 5recisel+, the lenienc+ sho n the partiesd ell at length on their respective contentions should disprove an+ suspicion that the decisionarrived at as reached ithout according the parties the funda ental fairness to hich the+ areentitled under the Constitution. Since, at the ost, the relief sought ;+ petitioner ill not, in an+

a+, foreclose the ulti ate outco e of the cases against hi one a+ or the other, e dee edthat the constitutional provision invoked did not strictl+ call for application. In that sense, a

ini u resolution certainl+ cannot ;e stig ati!ed as in an+ ise failing to a;ide ;+ aconstitutional co and.

A?ERE ORE, the otion for reconsideration is denied, our resolution of :anuar+ 0 , $(*1dis issing the petitions for of erit reiterated and the te porar+ restraining order issue ;+ us onOcto;er $ , $(*1 lifted so that the case against petitioner can ;e dul+ heard forth ith. Aithoutpronounce ent as to costs.

Page | 173



# 3 EN 8&NC

G.R. No. 8100 ! 2 15, 1989VICTORINO C. )RANCISCO,petitioner, vs. INAI ER!SQUL +$ T"E "ON. COURT O)A EALS, respondents.

CRU4, J.:

&n i portant constitutional 7uestion has ;een injected in this case hich started out as an ordinar+co plaint for a su of one+. 3he 7uestion s7uarel+ presented to the Court is the validit+ of the

e orandu decision authori!ed under Section 2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0( in the light of &rticle VIII,Section $2 of the Constitution.

On 4a+ 0$, $()2, the petitioner leased his apart ent in 4akati to the private respondent for aperiod of one +ear for the stipulated rental of 51,===.== a onth. 5ursuant to the lease contract,the private respondent deposited ith the petitioner the a ount of 5(,===.== to ans er for unpaidrentals or an+ da age to the leased pre ises e6cept hen caused ;+ reasona;le ear and tear.On 4a+ 1$, $()', the private respondent vacated the propert+. ?e thereafter re7uested the refundof his deposit inus the su of 5$,===.==, representing the rental for the additional ten da+s of hisoccupanc+ after the e6piration of the lease. 3he petitioner rejected this re7uest. ?e said the lesseestill o ed hi for other charges, including the electricit+ and ater ;ills and the su of 50,'==.==for repainting of the leased pre ises to restore the to their original condition. 1

3he private respondent sued in the 4etropolitan 3rial Court of 4akati. &fter the su; ission ofposition papers ;+ the parties, a su ar+ judg ent as rendered on Octo;er $$, $()', sustainingthe co plainant and holding that the repainting as not chargea;le to hi . 3he defendant asordered to pa+ the plaintiff the a ount of 5*,*'=.==, representing the ;alance of the deposit afterdeducting the ater and electricit+ charges. 3he plaintiff as also a arded the su of 5$,0'=.==as attorne+9s fees, plus the Costs. 5

3his decision as appealed to the Regional 3rial Court of 4akati and as affir ed ;+ :udge :oseC. de la Ra a on :anuar+ $2, $()*. 3his as done in a e orandu decision reading in full asfollo s"

4E4OR&ND>4 DECISION

&fter a careful and thorough perusal, evaluation and stud+ of the records of this case, thisCourt here;+ adopts ;+ reference the findings of fact and conclusions of la contained inthe decision of the 4etropolitan 3rial Court of 4akati, 4etro 4anila, 8ranch 1 and findsthat there is no cogent reason to distur; the sa e.

A?ERE ORE, judg ent appealed fro is here;+ affir ed in toto . 3

Ahen the defendant ent to the Court of &ppeals, his petition for revie as denied on Septe ;er 0(, $()*, as so too as his otion for reconsideration, on Dece ;er $, $()*. ?e is no ;eforeus to fault the respondent court, principall+ for sustaining the e orandu decision of the regional

trial court. ?is contention is that it violates &rticle VIII, Section $2 of the Constitution.3his provision reads as follo s"

Sec. $2. No decision shall ;e rendered ;+ an+ court ithout e6pressing therein clearl+ anddistinctl+ the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased.

No petition for revie or otion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall ;erefused due course or denied ithout stating the legal ;asis therefor.

E6cept for the second paragraph, hich as introduced onl+ in the present charter, Section $2 has;een in force since the Constitution of $(1'. 3he provision as recast in affir ative ter s in the$(*1 Constitution ;ut has ;een virtuall+ restored to its original for in the Constitution of $()*, to

Page | 174



appl+ to all courts, including the unicipal courts. 3he purpose has al a+s ;een the sa e, vi!., toinfor the person reading the decision, and especiall+ the parties, of ho it as reached ;+ thecourt after consideration of the pertinent facts and e6a ination of the applica;le la s.

3he parties are entitled to no less than this e6planation if onl+ to assure the that the courtrendering the decision actuall+ studied the case ;efore pronouncing its judg ent. 8ut there are

ore su;stantial reasons. or one thing, the losing part+ ust ;e given an opportunit+ to anal+!ethe decision so that, if per itted, he a+ elevate hat he a+ consider its errors for revie ;+ ahigher tri;unal. or another, the decision, if ell-presented and reasoned, a+ convince the losingpart+ of its erits and persuade it to accept the verdict in good grace instead of prolonging thelitigation ith a useless appeal. & third reason is that decisions ith a full e6position of the factsand the la on hich the+ are ;ased, especiall+ those co ing fro the Supre e Court, illconstitute a valua;le ;od+ of case la that can serve as useful references and even as precedentsin the resolution of future controversies. &s the Court said in Rosales v. Court of irst Instance. 6

5recedents are helpful in deciding cases hen the+ are on all fours or at least su;stantiall+Identical ith previous litigations. !r(umentum a simili valet in le(e. Earlier decisions areguideposts that can lead us in the right direction as e tread the high a+s and ;+ a+s ofthe la in the search for truth and justice. 3hese pronounce ents represent the isdo ofthe past. 3he+ are the voice of vanished judges talking to the future. E6cept here there isa need to reverse the ;ecause of an e ergent vie point or an altered situation, the+ urgeus strongl+ that, indeed, the trodden path is ;est.

&ccording to the petitioner, the e orandu decision rendered ;+ the regional trial court should;e revoked for non-co pliance ith the a;ove-7uoted constitutional andate. ?e asks that thecase ;e re anded to the regional trial court for a full ;lo n hearing on the erits, to ;e follo ed ;+a decision stating therein clearl+ and distinctl+ the facts and the la on hich it is ;ased. or hispart, the private respondent de urs. ?e justifies the e orandu decision as authori!ed ;+ 8.5.8lg. $0( and invokes the ruling of this Court in Ro ero v. Court of &ppeals, Ahich sustained thesaid la .

Section 2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0( reads as follo s"

Sec. 2=. 5orm of decision in appealed cases . F Ever+ decision or final resolution of a court

in appealed cases shall clearl+ and distinctl+ state the findings of fact and the conclusions of la on hich it is ;ased hich a+ ;e contained in the decision or final resolution itself, oradopted ;+ reference fro those set forth in the decision, order or resolution appealed fro .

3he a;ove section as applied in the Bomero case, together ith a si ilar rule e ;odied inSection $) of 5.D. No. (2 , providing that"

&ll cases of the Court of &grarian Relations no pending ;efore the Court of &ppeals shallre ain in the Division to hich the+ have ;een assigned, and shall ;e decided ithin si6t+# =% da+s fro the effectivit+ of this Decree/ 5rovided, ho ever, 3hat if the decision or order ;e an affir ance in toto of the dispositive conclusion of the judg ent appealed fro , thenthe Court of &ppeals a+, instead of rendering an e6tended opinion, indicate clearl+ the trialcourt9s findings of fact and pronounce ents of la hich have ;een adopted as ;asis forthe affir ance.

In the said case, :ustice :ose . eria, speaking for a unani ous Court, declared"

&s previousl+ stated, the decision of the Court of &grarian Relations consisted of thirteenpages, single space. 3he a;ove-7uoted decision of the respondent Court of &ppealsconsists of four pages, three of hich contains ver;ati the dispositive portion of thedecision appealed fro . 3he re aining page is devoted to an e6planation of h+ <for

judicial convenience and e6pedienc+, therefore, Ae here;+ adopt, ;+ a+ of reference, thefindings of facts and conclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision, as integral part ofthis Our decision.< 3he said decision a+ ;e considered as su;stantial co pliance ith thea;ove-7uoted provisions in Section $) of 5.D. No. (2 and Section 2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0(.

Page | 175



Nevertheless, he as 7uick to add a tena;le isgiving and to e6press the follo ing reservation"

3he authorit+ given the appellate court to adopt ;+ reference the findings of fact andconclusions of la fro those set forth in the appealed decisions should ;e e6ercised ithcaution and prudence, ;ecause the tendenc+ ould ;e to follo the line of least resistance;+ just adopting the findings and conclusions of the lo er court ithout thoroughl+ stud+ingthe appealed case.

3his caveat as necessar+ ;ecause, as he correctl+ o;served"

It cannot ;e too strongl+ e phasi!ed that just as i portant as the intrinsic validit+ of adecision is the perception ;+ the parties-litigants that the+ have ;een accorded a fairopportunit+ to ;e heard ;+ a fair and responsi;le agistrate ;efore judg ent is rendered. Itis this perception, coupled ith a clear conscience, hich ena;les the e ;ers of the

judiciar+ to discharge the a eso e responsi;ilit+ of sitting in judg ent on their fello en.

3here is no 7uestion that the purpose of the la in authori!ing the e orandu decision is toe6pedite the ter ination of litigations for the ;enefit of the parties as ell as the courts the selves.

Concerned ith the ounting pro;le of dela+ in the ad inistration of justice, the Constitution nocontains a nu ;er of provisions ai ed at correcting this serious difficult+ that has caused uchdisaffection a ong the people. 3hus, Section $ of the 8ill of Rights reiterates the originalprovision in the $(*1 Constitution guaranteeing to all persons <the right to a speed+ disposition oftheir cases ;efore all judicial, 7uasi-judicial or ad inistrative ;odies.< Section $2#0% of the sa e

&rticle III retains the rule that the accused shall ;e entitled to a trial that shall not onl+ ;e pu;lic andi partial ;ut also speed+. In &rticle VIII, Section '#1%, the Supre e Court is e6pressl+ per itted tote poraril+ assign a judge fro one station to another hen the pu;lic interest so re7uires, as

hen there is a necessit+ for less occupied judge to help a ;usier colleague dispose of his cases.In paragraph ' of the sa e section, it is stressed that the rules of court to ;e pro ulgated ;+ theSupre e Court <shall provide a si plified and ine6pensive procedure for the speed+ disposition ofcases.< In Section $', of the sa e article, a6i u periods are prescri;ed for the decision orresolution of cases, to it, t ent+-four onths in the case of Supre e Court and, unless reduced;+ the Supre e Court, t elve onths for all lo er collegiate courts and three onths for all otherlo er courts.

3he courts of justice are reall+ hard put at coping ith the tre endous nu ;er of cases in theirdockets hich, to ake atters orse, continues to gro ;+ the da+ despite the efforts ;eingtaken to reduce it. In the Supre e Court alone, an average of 2== cases is received ever+ onthas against the average of 1== cases disposed of during the sa e onth, leaving a difference of$== cases onthl+ that is added to so e ',=== still unresolved cases that have accu ulatedduring the last t o decades or so. &t this rate, the ;acklog ill increase ;+ $,0== cases ever+ +earon top of the earlier ;alance, uch of hich, despite its age, is still via;le and have still to ;eresolved. Considering that the Court spends four da+s of the eek for stud+ing and deli;erating onthese cases in its en banc and division sessions, one can appreciate the li ited ti e allo ed its

e ;ers for the actual riting of its decisions. #3his particular decision, hile e6tended, happensfortunatel+ to ;e less co plicated than an+ of the other cases su; itted to it, hich re7uire ore

ti e to rite, not to ention the antecedent research that a+ have to ;e ade.%Vie ed in the light of these practical considerations, the e orandu decision can ;e elco edindeed as an accepta;le ethod of dealing e6peditiousl+ ith the case load of the courts of justice,8ut e6pedienc+ alone, no atter ho co pelling, cannot e6cuse non-co pliance ith theConstitution/ or to put it ore fa iliarl+, the end does not justif+ the eans. It is plain that if Section2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0( is unconstitutional, it ust ;e struck do n.

In the case at ;ar, e find that a judg ent as ade ;+ the etropolitan trial court in co plianceith the rule on su ar+ procedure. 3he decision consisted of three t+pe ritten pages, single

space, and stated clearl+ and distinctl+ the facts and the la on hich it as ;ased. It as a

Page | 176



concise and ell- ritten decision, and a correct one to ;oot, for hich :udge 5aciano 8. 8alita is to;e co ended.

3he pro;le , though, as the petitioner sees it, is that in affir ing this judg ent, the regional trialcourt of 4akati rendered a ere e orandu decision that si pl+ adopted ;+ reference thefindings of fact and la ade ;+ :udge 8alita and then concluded, ithout sa+ing ore, that <there

as no cogent reason to distur; the sa e.< It is clai ed that as :udge de la Ra a did not akehis o n state ent of the facts and the la as re7uired ;+ the Constitution, his e orandudecision as a total nullit+. Aorse, hen the appeal as taken to the respondent court, hat itrevie ed as not the e orandu decision of the regional trial court ;ut the decision rendered ;+the etropolitan trial court hich, legall+ speaking, as not ;efore the appellate court.

It is not reall+ correct to sa+ that the Court of &ppeals did not revie the e orandu decision ofthe regional trial court hich as the su;ject of the petition for revie . & reading of its o n decision

ill sho that it dealt e6tensivel+ ith the e orandu decision and discussed it at so e lengthin the light of the o;servations F and reservations F of this Court in the Bomero case. 4oreover,in revie ing the decision of the etropolitan trial court, the Court of &ppeals as actuall+ revie ingthe decision of the regional trial court, hich had incorporated ;+ reference the earlier decisionrendered ;+ :udge 8alita.

3he 7uestion, of course, is hether such incorporation ;+ reference as a valid act that effectivel+elevated the decision of the etropolitan trial court for e6a ination ;+ the Court of &ppeals.

3o ;e fair, let it ;e said that hen :udge dela Ra a availed hi self of the convenience offered ;+Section 2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0(, he as onl+ acting in accordance ith the ruling announcedin Bomero per itting the use of the e orandu decision. It ust also ;e o;served that even ifthe respondent court appeared to ;e partial to the reservation rather than the rule in the said case,it nevertheless had the dut+ F hich it discharged F to a;ide ;+ the doctrine announced therein;+ the highest tri;unal of the land. 3he respondent court could not have acted other ise.

3his Court is not ha pered ;+ such inhi;itions. &s e a+ re-e6a ine our o n rulings and odif+or reverse the henever arranted, e take a second look at the e orandu decision and theRo ero case and test the on the touchstone of the Constitution.

3he la does not define the e orandu decision and si pl+ suggests that the court a+ adopt;+ reference the findings of fact and the conclusions of la stated in the decision, order orresolution on appeal ;efore it. No particular for is prescri;ed/ the conditions for its use are notindicated. In fact, 8.5. 8lg. $0( does not even e plo+ the ter < e orandu decision< in Section2= or else here in the rest of the statute. 3his phrase appears to have ;een introduced in this

jurisdiction not ;+ that la ;ut ;+ Section 02 of the Interi Rules and Buidelines, reading asfollo s"

Sec. 02. Memorandum decisions. 1 4 3he judg ent or final resolution of a court in appealedcases a+ adopt ;+ reference the findings of fact and conclusions of la contained in thedecision or final order appealed fro .

It is clear that here the decision of the appellate court actuall+ reproduces the findings of fact or

the conclusions of la of the court ;elo , it is not a e orandu decision as envisioned in thea;ove provision. 3he distinctive features of the e orandu decision are, first, it is rendered ;+an appellate court, and second, it incorporates ;+ reference the findings of fact or the conclusionsof la contained in the decision, order or ruling under revie . 4ost likel+, the purpose is to affirthe decision, although it is not i possi;le that the approval of the findings of fact ;+ the lo er court

a+ lead to a different conclusion of la ;+ the higher court. &t an+ rate, the reason for allo ingthe incorporation ;+ reference is evidentl+ to avoid the cu ;erso e reproduction of the decision of the lo er court, or portions thereof, in the decision of the higher court. 3he Idea is to avoid havingto repeat in the ;od+ of the latter decision the findings or conclusions of the lo er court since the+are ;eing approved or adopted an+ a+.

Page | 177



5arentheticall+, the e orandu decision is also allo ed in the >nited States, ;ut its for #atleast% differs fro the one under consideration in this case. Such a decision is rendered in thatcountr+ upon a previous9 deter ination ;+ the judge that there is no need for a pu;lished opinionand that it ill have no precedential effect. 3he judg ent is usuall+ li ited to the dispositive portion;ut a e orandu is attached containing a ;rief state ent of the facts and the la involved,

ainl+ for the infor ation of the parties to the case.

Ahen a la is 7uestioned ;efore the Court, e e plo+ the presu ption in favor of itsconstitutionalit+. &s e said in eralta v. Commission of lections , <to justif+ the nullification of ala , there ust ;e a clear and une7uivocal ;reach of the Constitution, not a dou;tful andargu entative i plication.< 7 Courts ill ;end over ;ack ard to sustain that presu ption. In case of dou;t, it is the dut+ of the judiciar+ to e6ert ever+ effort to prevent the invalidation of the la and thenullification of the ill of the legislature that enacted it and the e6ecutive that approved it. 3his noris ;ased on a ;eco ing respect that the judiciar+ is e6pected to accord the political depart ents of the govern ent hich, it ust ;e assu ed in fairness, thoroughl+ studied the easure underchallenge and assured the selves of its constitutionalit+ ;efore agreeing to enact it.

3he Court has deli;erated e6tensivel+ on the challenge posed against the e orandu decisionas no authori!ed ;+ la . 3aking into account the salutar+ purpose for hich it is allo ed, and;earing in ind the a;ove-discussed restraint e ust o;serve hen a la is challenged ;eforeus, e have co e to the conclusion that Section 2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0(, as e shall interpret it here, isnot unconstitutional.Ahat is 7uestioned a;out the la is the per ission it gives for the appellate court to erel+ adopt;+ reference in its o n decision the judg ent of the lo er court on appeal. It is eas+ to understandthat this device a+ feed the suspicion feared ;+ :ustice eria that the court has not given theappeal the attention it deserved and thus deprived the parties of due process. 3rue or not, thisi pression is likel+ to under ine popular faith in the judiciar+ as an i partial foru hich hears;efore it decides and ;ases its decision on the esta;lished facts and the applica;le la .

No less o;jectiona;le is the inconvenience involved in having to search for the decision referred to,hich, having ;een incorporated ;+ reference onl+, does not have to ;e attached to thee orandu decision. 3he Court had occasion earlier to co plain a;out this difficult+ in the case

of Gindoy v. -apucar , 8 here e said"

. . . 3rue it is that the Court of irst Instance a+ adopt in toto either e6pressl+ or i pliedl+the findings and conclusions of the inferior court, and as a rule, such adoption oulda ount to a su;stantial co pliance ith the constitutional andate discussed herein, ;ut

here, as in this case, the specific argu ents presented against the decision of the inferiorcourt are of such nature that a ;lanket affir ance of said decision does not in factade7uatel+ dispose of the strictures against it, it is ;ut proper, if onl+ to facilitate the actionto ;e taken ;+ the appellate court on the petition for revie , that the concrete ;ases of thei pugned decision should appear on its face, instead of the appellate court having to diginto the records to find out ho the inferior court resolved the issues of the case.

&s to this pro;le , the Solicitor Beneral correctl+ points out that it does not e6ist in the case at ;ar

;ecause the decision of the Court of &ppeals e6tensivel+ 7uoted fro the decision of theetropolitan trial court. &lthough onl+ incorporated ;+ reference in the e orandu decision ofthe regional trial court, :udge 8alita9s decision as nevertheless availa;le to the Court of &ppeals.It is this circu stance, or even happenstance, if +ou ill, that has validated the e orandudecision challenged in this case and spared it fro constitutional infir it+.

3hat sa e circu stance is hat ill ove us no to la+ do n the follo ing re7uire ent, as acondition for the proper application of Section 2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0(. 3he e orandu decision, to;e valid, cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of la of the lo er court onl+;+ remote reference, hich is to sa+ that the challenged decision is not easil+ and i ediatel+availa;le to the person reading the e orandu decision. or the incorporation ;+ reference to;e allo ed, it ust provide for direct access to the facts and the la ;eing adopted, hich ust ;e

Page | 178



contained in a state ent attached to the said decision. In other ords, the e orandu decisionauthori!ed under Section 2= of 8.5. 8lg. $0( should actuall+ e ;od+ the findings of fact andconclusions of la of the lo er court in an anne6 attached to and ade an indispensa;le part ofthe decision.

It is e6pected that this re7uire ent ill alla+ the suspicion that no stud+ as ade of the decisionof the lo er court and that its decision as erel+ affir ed ithout a proper e6a ination of thefacts and the la on hich it as ;ased. 3he proAimity at least of the anne6ed state ent shouldsuggest that such an e6a ination has ;een undertaken. It is, of course, also understood that thedecision ;eing adopted should, to ;egin ith, co pl+ ith &rticle VIII, Section $2 as no a ount ofincorporation or adoption ill rectif+ its violation.

3he Court finds it necessar+ to e phasi!e that the e orandu decision should ;e sparingl+used lest it ;eco e an addictive e6cuse for judicial sloth. It is an additional condition for its validit+that this kind of decision a+ ;e resorted to onl+ in cases here the facts are in the ain accepted;+ ;oth parties or easil+ deter ina;le ;+ the judge and there are no doctrinal co plicationsinvolved that ill re7uire an e6tended discussion of the la s involved. 3he e orandu decision

a+ ;e e plo+ed in si ple litigations onl+, such as ordinar+ collection cases, here the appeal iso;viousl+ groundless and deserves no ore than the ti e needed to dis iss it.

Despite the convenience afforded ;+ the e orandu decision, it is still desira;le that theappellate judge e6ert so e effort in restating in his o n ords the findings of fact of the lo er courtand presenting his o n interpretation of the la instead of erel+ parroting the language of thecourt a quo as if he cannot do an+ ;etter. 3here ust ;e less intellectual indolence and ore prideof authorship in the riting of a decision, especiall+ if it co es fro an appellate court.

Judicial Department Cases (Consti 1)

Documents