Mendoza vs Manguiat

Facts
 Macarandang alleged that benito Mendoza is cultivating a certain parcel of land
belonging to him, which is planted to citrus
 Mendoza did not like to take care of the citrus trees planted thereon by macarandang, but
he was to raise thereon diverse crops like palay, corn and other short lived crops
 It is alleged that in spite of the fact that macarandang had given Mendoza notice that he
was to plant vines and other crops on the farm, Mendoza plowed half of it and through
carelessness, destroyed 56 citrus trees
 Medoza moved to dismiss, court of industrial relations had jurisdiction
 Motion denied
 (arciga vs de jesus)

Issue
WON court of industrial relations has jurisdiction

Held
Yes. In October 1953, justice of peace and municipal courts still had jurisdiction to try tenancy
cases involving lands planted with citrus trees. But upon approval on aug 30,1954 of RA 1199
which repeals commonwealth acts nos 454 and 461, the relation between the landowner and the
tenant of citrus trees fell under the regulatory prov of ra 1199 as a consequence, the power of the
municipal court to try and decide the case was revoked and transferred to CIR. The jurisdiction
was terminated is one over the subject matter. A tenancy case involving citrus land fiend in oct
1953 should be dismissed and the plaintiff be directed to file his action in CIR

Teenhankee vs Director of prisoners in re Quriono

Facts
 haydee teehankee, a political detainee be released from custody upon filing a bond of
50k
 resolution upset a previous order of the fifth division of the people’s court denying her
petition for bail under act no. 682
 3 days later judge quirion, a member of said division speaking in the presence of news
paper reporters and for publication, criticized the sc for allegedly committing its biggest
blunder because it robbed the people’s court of its inherent power to decide cases for bail
 “ sc has no intellectual leadership. What it has is a mere sentimental leadership”, case
has been decided against him by quantitative voting, not qualitative. Branding some of
the members of this court as intellectual dishonest
 sc required quirino to answer why should he not be punished for such contemptuous
behavior
 judge quirin argued that in exculpation that at the time he mad the caustic remarks, the
teenhankee litigation was no longer pending because said detainee was already at liberty
under bail
Issue
WON judge quirino should be cited in contempt

Held
Newspaper publications tending to impune, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in
administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding, constitute criminal contempt which is
summarily punishable. A cause remains pending so long as there is still something for the court
to do therein, which may be embarrassed, impended or obstructed by the publication. Whether or
not an act constitutes contempt depends on its nature and not in the presence of actual intent.
Although the absence of such intent may be considered in mitigation. Opinion of dissenting judge
is peculiariy his own, not binding on the sc. Judge of people’s court attacking prematurely in the
newspapers the decision upsetting his own, was reprimanded. He could have been fined or
disbarred.

Naredo vs Yatco

Facts
 yatco held that the accretion of 2 hectares to lot 454 belonged to the registered owners of
said lot ( ricardo rizal and respondents)
 and that petitioners having no interest at all in the said accretion must vacate it, paying
damages 500 a year
 petitioners alleged that when the order of execution was promulgated the court had
already lost jurisdiction over the case
 respondents filed motion for execution of judgment pending appeal
 petitioners contend that considering the approval of the joint record on appeal on sep 19,
1947 the order for issuance of the writ on sept 30, 1947 was legally beyond the
jurisdiction of the tc

Issue
WON tc lacks jurisdiction

Held
No. the power to grant or deny a motion for execution before the expiration of the time to appeal
is discretionary with the CFI, which discretion will not be interfere with by the appellate court
unless it be shown that there has been an abuse or a subsequent change of conditions. Where
the tc timely issued an order allowing execution unless appellants filed a bond, another order to
carry out the pre-existing order even if, in the meantime the record on appeal had already been
approved. The plaintiffs without color of title had been occupying the lot since 1943, had paid no
charges, had been sentenced to pay damages and were seemingly insolvent. It cannot be said
that there has been abused of judicial discretion

Macazo vs Nunez

Facts
 Susana macazo was about 18 yrs old age at the time petition was filed
 Single, w/o parents and a deaf mute
 Teofilo macazo, her oldest bro, requested the respondent benildo nunez to take her in his
employ as laundry woman
 She is staying in the conjugal home and is receiving as average wage of 1 peso daily and
is given free quarters and food
 Couple are not related consanguinity to pet
 Susana gave birth of pacita nunez, paternity of child havng been admittd by benildo
nunez
 Petitioner is the 2nd oldest bro of Susana
 Court denied the pet for writ of habeas corpus only on 2 grounds
1. when someone is deprived of liberty
2. is wrongfully prevented from exercising the legal custody to which he is entitled over
another person
Issue
WON writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed

Held
No. where the person to whom a minor is entrusted misuse his parental power, the court may
order said person to show cause why the child’s custody should suitable person as the facts may
warrant. Even in hc proceeding the court has the power to award temporary custody of the minor
to some other suitable person after summoning and hearing all parties concerned. Where the
relation between the minor and her employer has degenerated into adulterous connection, the
court has ample power to take steps to protect the minor. It is no excuse that minor expressed
preference for remaining with her employer, because minor may not choose to continue an ilicit
relation that morals and law repudiate.