zACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL.

,
petitioners,vs.
JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.,
respondents.March 25, 1919
Facts
J ust o L uk ba n, who was the n th e Ma yo r o f th e
City of Manila, ordered thed e p o r t a t i o n o f 1 7 0 p r o s t i t u t e s t o D a v a o . H i s
r e a s o n f o r d o i n g s o w a s t o preserve the morals of the people of Manila. He
claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an haciendero Feliciano
Ynigo. Theprostitutes were confined in houses from October 16 to 18 of that year beforebeing boarded, at
the dead of night, in two boats bound for Davao. The womenwere under the assumption that they were
being transported to another policestation while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no
idea that the womenbeing sent to work for him were actually prostitutes. The families of the
prostitutes came forward to file charges against
Lukban,A n t o n H o h m a n n , t h e C h i e f o f P o l i c e , a n d F r a n c i s c o S a l e s , t h e G o v e r n o
r o f Dav ao. T he y pra ye d f or a wri t o f h abe as cor pus to b e is sue d
a g a i n s t t h e respondents to compel them to bring back the 170 women who were deportedto Mindanao
against their will.During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported
withouttheir consent. In effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Most of a l l , t h e r e
w a s n o l a w o r o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g L u k b a n ' s d e p o r t a t i o n o f t h e 1 7 0 prostitutes.
Issue
Whether we are a government of laws or a government of men.
Held
We a r e c l e a r l y a g ov e r n me nt of l a ws . L uk ba n c o mmi t t e d a g r a v e a bus e
o f discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. There is no
law expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a lawpunishing public officials, not
expressl y authorized by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence.Furthermore,
the prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled tothe same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of
Rights, as every other citizen. Theirchoice of profession should not be a cause for
discrimination. It ma y makesome, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not
authorize anyone tocompel said prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of the human
race. These women have been deprived of their libert y by being exiled to Davao without
even being given the opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse,without even consenting to being
transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban etal must be severely punished.

Estrella OndoyvsVirgilio Ignacio

Art II Sec 10 of the Constitution of the Philippines : The State shall promote social justice in all phases
of national development.
Facts:
Jose Ondoy, son of Estrella Ondoy, drowned while in the employ of Virgilio Ignacio. According to
thechief engineer and oiler, Jose Ondoy was aboard the ship as part of the workforce. He was invited
byfriends to a drinking spree, left the vessel, and thereafter was found dead. Therefore, Estrella wasasking
for compensation from the death of her son while in the respondents employ. However, thestatement
given by the chief engineer and oiler was ignored by the hearing officer and thereforedismissed the claim
for lack of merit. Even when a motion for reconsideration was filed, this was alsodenied by the Secretary
of Labor for the same reason, that is, lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether or not the compensation for the death of Jose Ondoy is constitutional; is social justiceapplicable
in this case?
Ruling:
Yes.Firstly, there was no due diligence in the fact finding of the Department of Labor. It merely
disregardedthe statements made by the chief engineer and oiler. Secondly, the principle of social justice
applied inthis case is a matter of protection, not equality. The Court recognized the right of the petitioner
to theclaim of compensation because her son was shown to have died while in the actual performance
of hiswork. To strengthen the constitutional scheme of social justice and protection to labor, The
Courtquoted another case as between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who
hasresources to secure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the strictercompliance.