Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ISSUE: ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not R.A. 4200 applies to taping of a private conversation by Whether or not Section 42 of BP 129 should be given a liberal interpretation
one of the parties to a conversation. by the Court.
2.) Whether or not the substance must be alleged in the information. HELD:
Whether or not R.A. 4200 applied to private conversation.
Section 42 of this law states: “Longetivity pay. A monthly longetivity pay
HELD: equivalent to 5% of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to the Justices and Judges of
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any the courts herein created for each five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious
person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication, to secretly service rendered in the judiciary; provided that in no case shall the total salary of each
Justice or Judge concerned, after this longetivity pa s added, exceed that salary of the Labor Arbiter ordered the petitioner to reinstate private respondent and to
Justice or Judge next in rank. pay Salazar P50,000.00 worth of moral damages, a decision from which the NLRC
affirmed with MODIFICATION when appealed.
The language and terms of this provision is very clear and unequivocal, this
shows that the longetivity pay is not available even to a judicial officer which is not a Hence, this petition assailing the Labour Tribunal for having committed grave
judge or justice. It is likewise not available to an officer in the Executive simply because abuse of discretion in holding that suspension and subsequent dismissal of Salazar
he or she is not serving as a judge or justice. It cannot also be available to a judge or were illegal and in ordering her reinstatement with 2 years backwages.
justice for past services he or she did not render within the Judiciary as services
rendered outside the Judiciary for purposes of longetivity pay is not contemplated by HELD:
law. In the case at bar, the law is on the side of the private respondent. In the first
Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. National Labor Relations place, the wording of the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous: “An employee who is
Commission and Imelda Salazar unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement… and to his full
backwages.” Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain
FACTS: and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without
attempted interpretation. VERBA LEGIS NON EST RECENDUM, or from the words of a
Private respondent, is a general systems analyst of GMCR. Through an statute there should be no departure. Neither does the provision admit of any
investigation, prompted by reports that company equipment and spare parts under qualification. If in the wisdom of the Court, there may be ground or grounds for non-
Saldivar’s custody are missing, GMCR found out that Sadivar entered into a partnership application of the above-cited provision, this should be by wat of exception, such as
with Concave Commercial and Industrial Company with Richard A. Yambao, a supplier of when the reinstatement may be inadmissible due to ensuing strained relations between
petitioner often reconmmended by Saldivar. the employer and the employee.
Saldivar had taken Fedders airconditioning unit for his own personal use NLRC RESOLUTION AFFIRMED.
without authorization and also connibed with Yambao to defraud petitioner of its
property. The property was recovered.
The investigation showed that Imelda Salazar violated company regulation by Felicito Basbacio vs. Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice
involving herself in transactions conflicting with the company’s interests by signing as
witness between the partnership of Saldivar and Yambao. Consequently, the company FACTS:
placed Salazar under preventive suspension for 1 month, thus giving her 30 days within Felicito, based on his acquittal, filed a claim under R.A. No. 7309, Sec 3(a),
which to explain her side. But instead, Salazar filed a complaint against petitioner on which provides for the payment of compensation to “any person who was unjustly
illegal suspension, which she subsequently amended to include illegal dismissal, accused, convicted, imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of a judgment od
vacation and sick leave benefits, 13 th month pay and damages. acquittal.” The claim was denied on the ground that although his presence at scene of
the killing was not sufficient to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, yet, considering JMM Promotions and Management, INC. vs. National Labor Relations Commision
that there was bad blood between him and the deceased, there was basis for finding and Ulpiano F. Delos Santos
that he was “probably guilty”.
FACTS:
Petitioner questions the basis of the respondent’s ruling. The “mere fact that the
claimant was imprisoned for a crime whish he was subsequently acquitted of is already Petitioner appealed to the NLRC the decision rendered by the Philippines
unjust in itself,” he contends. Overseas Employment Admin., NLRC however, dismissed the said appeal on the ground
of failure to post the required appeal bond.
ISSUE:
The petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
Whether or not the term “unjustly accused, conviceted, imprisoned but applying these rules to decisions rendered by the POEA, insisting that the appeal bond is
subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal” refer to all kinds of not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for overseas employment because they
accusation and conviction. are already required under Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules not to ppay a
license fee of P30,000.00 but also to post a cash bond of P100,000.00 and a surety
HELD: bond of P50,000.00.
Petitioner’s contention has no merit. Solicitor General sustains the appeal bond requirement but suggests that the
RATIO: rules cited by the NLRC are applicable only to decisions of the Labor Arbiter and not of
the POEA.
Section 3(a) does not refer solely to an unjust conviction as a result of which
the accused is unjustly imprisoned, but, in addition, to an unjust accusation. The accused ISSUE:
must have been “unjustly accused, in consequence of which he is unjustly convicted and Whether or not petitioner was still required to post an appeal bond to perfect
then imprisoned. If the prosecution is not malicious, any conviction even though based its appeal from a decision of the POEA to the NLRC after having posted a total bond of
on less than the required quantum of proof in criminal cases may be erroneous but not P150,000.00 and place in escrow the amount of P200,000.00 as required by the POEA
necessarily unjust. Rules.
PETITION DISMISSED. HELD:
RATIO:
Republic Act No. 6683 was approved on 2 December 1988 providing for
benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation from the government service as
B/Gen. Jose Commendor, et. al. vs. gen. Renato S. De Villa, et al.
well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization.
FACTS: “Sec. 2. Coverage.— This act shall cover all appointive officials and
Petitioners are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing employees of the National Government, including government-owned or
prosecutions for their alleged participations in the failed coup d’etat that took place on controlled corporations with original charters, as well as the personnel of all
December 1 to 9, 1989. local government units. The benefits authorizes under this act shall apply to
all regular, temporary, casual an emergency employees, regardless of age
The charges against them are violations of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Meeting), who have rendered at least 2 years consecutive years of government service
AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman) and AW 94 (various) crimes in as of the date of separation. Uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces of the
relation to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). Philippines including those of the PC-INP are excluded from the coverage of
this Act.”
The charges were reffered to General Court Matial No. 14 (GCM No. 14).
Petioner Lydia Chua, believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of
At the hearing of May 15, 1990, petitioners manifested that they were the program, filed an application on Januray 1989 with respondent National Irrigation
exercising their right to raise peremptory challenges against the president and Administration (NIA) which however, was denied. Civil Service Commission denied her
members of GCM No. 14. They invoked Art. 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 408 for this motion for reconsideration on the ground that her employment is co-terminous with the
purpose. GCM No. 14 ruled, however, that peremptory challenges had been discounted project.
under P.D. 39.
ISSUE: privilege. This is so because the greater included the lesser, expressed in the
Whether or not petitioner’s status as co-terminous employee is excluded maxim, in eo plus sit, sunperinest et minus.”
from the benefits of R.A. No. 6683
PETITION GRANTED.
HELD:
The rule of casus omissus has no applicability in the case at bar. The maxim Plaintiffs Aquial prayed to declare the said title void due to irregularities in
“casus omissus” can operate and apply only if and when the omission has been clearly the land registration proceeding. They asked for damages.
established. In the case under consideration, it has already been shown that the Defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of
legislature did not exclude or omit justices of the peace from the enumeration of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches and prior judgement. The
officers precluded from engaging in partisan political activities. Rather, they were plaintiffs opposed that motion. The lower court denied it. The grounds of the motion to
merely called by another term. In the new law, or Section 54 of the Revised Election dismiss were pleaded as affirmative defences in the answer of defendants Tuason and
Code, justices of the peace were just called “judges”. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. They insisted that a preliminary hearing be held on those
In the present cases, and for reasons already mentioned, there has been no defences.
such omission. There has only been a substitution of terms On January 25, 1967, the spouses Jose and Saturnina Cordova, who had
Our law making body has consistently prohibited justices of the peace from bought eleven hectares of the disputed land from the plaintiffs, were allowed to
participating in partisan politics. They were prohibited under the onld Election Law since intervene in the case.
1907. Likewise, they were so enjoined by the Revised Administrative Code. Another law Defendants filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
which expressed the prohibition to them was Act No. 3387 and later, Commonwealth Act
No. 375. ISSUE:
Whether or not OCT No. 735 and the titles derived therefrom can be
questioned at this late hour by respondents Aquial and Cordova.
J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc., et al. vs Hon. Herminio C. Mariano, Manuela Aquial,
Spouses Jose M. Cordova and Saturnina C. Cordova HELD:
FACTS: TRIAL COURT DIRECTED TO DISMISS CIVIL CASE NO. 8943 WITH PREJUDICE.
On October 1, 1965, Manuela Aquial and Maria Aquial filed a complaint in forma RATIO:
pauperis in the CFI of Rizal, Pasig Branch X, wherein they prayed that they be declared
the owners of a parcel of land which has an area of 383 quinones, was allegedly The ruling in the Benin, Alacantara and Pili cases was applied in Mara, Inc. vs
acquired by their father by means of a Spanish title issued to him on May 10, 1877. Estrekka, L-40511, July 25 1975, 65 SCRA 471. That ruling is simply reiteration or
confirmation of the holding on the following cases directly or incidentally sustaining OCT complu with the requirements of R.A. 9225. The COMELEC first division accordingly
No. 735. nullified his proclamation. Arnado moved for reconsideration. Casan Macode Maquiling,
another mayoralty candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes
Considering the governing principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, it intervened in the case.
becomes evident that respondents Aquial and Cordova cannot maintain their action in
Civil Case No. 8943 without eroding the long settled holding of the courts that OCT No. On February 2, 2011, the Comelec en bacn rendered a Resolution reversing the
735 is valid and no longer open to attack. ruling of the Comelec first division, on the ground that Arnado’s continued use of US
passport did not operate to revert his status to dual citizenship.
On April 16, 2013, Court rendered its decision in Maquiling, setting aside the
Rommel C. Arnado vs Commission on Elections and Florante Capitan COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution. Declaring Maquiling as te dule elected mayor of
FACTS: Kauswagan Lanao del Norte.
Petitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine Capitan filed another petition this time seeking to nullify Arnado’s
citizenship after he was naturalized as citizen of the United States of America. proclamation in view of the Maquiling decision, where Arnado is disqualified from
Subsequently, and in preparation for his plans to run for public office in the Philippines, serving any local elective office.
Arnado applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 before the Consul General of the ISSUE:
Philippines in San Francisco, USA. He took Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines on July 10, 2008 and, on even date, an Order of Approval of Citizenship Whether or not the doctrine laid down in Maquiling case is applicable.
Retention and Re acquisition was issued in his favour. On April 3, 2009, Arnado executed
an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship. After filing for a Certificate of HELD:
Candidacy for Mayoralty post of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, Linog C. Badua, another PETITION DISMISSED, the assailed COMELEC Resolutions AFFIRMED.
mayoralty candidate filed a petition to disqualify Arnado and or to cancel is COC on the
ground, among others, that Arnado remained a US citizen because he continued to use RATIO:
his US passport for entry to and exit from the Philippines after executing aforesaid
Affidavit of Renunciation. While Balua’s petition remained pending, the May 10, 2010 Arnado’s use of his US passport in 2009invalidated his oath of renunciation
elections proceeded where Arnado garnered the highest number of votes of the resulting in his disqualification to run for mayor of Kauswagan in the 2010 elections.
mayoralty post of Kauswagan and was proclaimed the winning candidate. Since then and up to the time he filed his COC for the 2013 elections, Arnado had not
cured the defect in his disqualification. Maquiling, therefore, is binding on and applicable
On October 5, 2010, the COMELEC Fisrt Division issued a Resolution holding to this case following the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quite movere. Under
that Arnado’s continued use of his US passport effectively negated his April 3, 2009 the doctrine, “when the court had once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
Affidavit of Renunciation. Thus, he was disqualified to run for public office for failure to certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases
where facts are substantially the same”. It enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and
bars relitigation of the same issue.