Bayan Muna vs. Romulo - GR No. 159618 Case Digest Tanada vs.

Tuvera (Publication of various Presidential Decrees)

(RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement not violative of Rome Statute –
-The conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not
Doctrine of Incorporation – Primacy and Competence of the preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette,
Judiciary) even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity under
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 which requires publication in
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) and the Official Gazette all important legislative acts which are public in
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL – ARROYO nature.
G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010
Angara v. Electoral Commission. G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936.
(Section 15, Article VII Midnight Appointees Ban 2 months from the (Motion of Protest to Electoral Commission “Electoral Tribunal”
next election; not applicable/contary to Section 9, Article VIII Filling after Proclamation of National Assemby now “Congress” - Judicial
of Supreme Court Vacancies within 90days of vacancy – CJ Reynato Review – System of Checks and Balances)
Puno retirement)

Consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other
interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part must departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and
be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of
to the general intent of the whole enactment. the Constitution.

The enactment should be construed with reference to its intended The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks
scope and purpose, and the courtshould seek to carry out this and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various
purpose rather than to defeat it. departments of the government. For example:

White Light Corporation v. City of Manila

G.R. No. 122846 | 2009-01-20 -All laws of the Philippine Islands shall continue in force until the
inauguration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; thereafter,
(Ordinance Prohibiting Short Time Stay in Hotels – Substantive Due such laws shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this
Process - Police Power Limits) Constitution, until amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the
National Assembly, and all references in such laws to the
Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by Government or officials of the Philippine Islands shall be construed,
the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and
sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or corresponding officials under this Constitution.
property

Individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that

may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest That the government established by the Constitution follows
or public welfare. fundamentally the theory of separation of power into the
legislative, the executive and the judicial.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Hypermix Feeds

Wheat Tariff – Declaratory Relief – Judicial Review of RTC (Within Sameer Oversees Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles (2014)
delegated authority, reasonable, pursuant to procedure) Quality Control turned Cutter – Illegal Dismissal from work -
Violation of Due Process ; no sufficient cause for termination –
Violation of Art. 282 of Labor Code; needs 2 notices and
Silverio vs Republic (2007) opportunity to be heard – Lex Loci Contractus (Law of the Place
G.R. No. 174689 | 2007-10-22 Where the Contract is made)
(Sex Reassignment – RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law)
Statutory Construction (words in a statute understood in their A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a
ordinary and well-known meaning) law. It "confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no
When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been
common and ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary passed at all
legislative intent. Thus, the words "male" and "female" in everyday
understanding do not include persons who have undergone sex
reassignment. Florentino v. Rivera (G.R. No. 167968, Jan. 23, 2006)

David Reyes vs. Jose Lim, G.R. No. 134241, August 11, 2003
(Fallo vs Body, former prevails). It is settled rule that “the operative
(Contract to Sell - Equity Jurisdiction – To avoid unjust enrichment
part in every decision is the dispositive portion or the fallo, and
to Reyes) – to attain substantial justice when the prescribed or
where there is conflict between the fallo and the body of the
customary forms of law are inadequate
decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the
fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a
statement, ordering nothing.”

Pagsibigan v. People, G.R. No. 163868, June 4, 2009.

Question of Law vs Question of Facts
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being
resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the
evidence. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining
what the law is on a certain set of facts. Once the issue invites a
review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact, not
reviewable.

HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TAN,Sr. vs. REYNALDA POLLESCAS

Failure to pay share of lease rental – Need only 1/4 or 25% on RA

3844 not 2/3

For making a wrong citation, the Court admonishes Atty. Jesus S.

Anonat, counsel for the Tan Heirs, to be more careful when citing
jurisprudence. The Court reminds him of his duty not to knowingly
misquote the text of a decision or authority lest he be guilty of
misleading the Court.

Hipos Sr vs Bay GR No 174813-15 17 March 2009

Denial of Motion to Withdraw Information by City Prosecutor –
Mandamus ( Extraordinary Writ to Compel an officer to perform a
ministerial duty, not a discretionary one) – Court is the best and sole
judge on what to do the case

Violation of Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or

misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that
which has not been proved.
Lawyer took specific statements from a decision, carefully cutting
off the portions which would expose the real import of the court’s
pronouncements