Você está na página 1de 18

Waterhouse Drug Corp.

v NLRC

Facts:
Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corp. Catolico sold to YSP
Inc. 10 bottles of Voren Tablets at P384 per unit. However, the normal selling price is P320 per unit. Catolico
overcharged by P64 per unit for a total of P640. YSP sent a check payable to Catolico as a “refund” for the
jacked-up price. It was sent in an envelope addressed to her. Saldana, the clerk of Waterous Drug Corp.
opened the envelope and saw that there was a check for P640 for Catolico.

Waterous Drug Corp. ordered the termination of Catolico for acts of dishonesty.

Issue:
Whether or not the evidence against Catolico is admissible considering that according to the NLRC,
it violates the constitutional right of the complainant and on the contrary, according to the petitioner, the
constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one’s person
from interference by government and cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals.

Held:
Yes, it is admissible.
In the case of People v. Marti, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures refers to the immunity of ones person from interference by government and cannot be extended to
acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
government.
In this case, there was no violation of the right of privacy of communication. petitioner WATEROUS
was justified in opening an envelope from one of its regular suppliers as it could assume that the letter was
a business communication in which it had an interest.
Sabio vs. Gordon (504 SCRA 704)
Facts:
Sec. 4-b, EO 1 provides that: “[n]o member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or
produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official
cognizance.”
Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 was introduced by then Sen. Defensor Santiago, directing an inquiry
in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas Telecommunications
Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT
Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of
Directors.
Pursuant to this resolution, Senator Gordon requested PCGG Chairman Sabio and his
Commissioners to appear as resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on
Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services.
Issue:
Whether or not Sabio can be subject to a legislative inquiry considering that the petitioner invoke
Section 4-b of EO 1 and considering further that the respondent may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
Held:
Yes.
Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution grants the Congress the power of legislative inquiry.
In this case, Sec.4-b is directly repugnant with Art. VI, Sec. 21. The exemption provided in the subject
provision, exempting PCGG members and staff from legislative inquiry, cannot be countenanced. Nowhere
in the Constitution is any provision granting such exemption. The Congress' power of inquiry, being broad,
encompasses everything that concerns the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly
needed statutes. It even extends "to government agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions
are within the power of Congress to regulate or even abolish," and PCGG belongs to this class.
Bagalihog v. Fernandez
Facts:
Rep. Moises Espinosa was shot to death shortly after disembarking at the Masbate Airport.Witnesses
said one of the gunmen fled on a motorcycle.
On the same day, petitioner's house, which was near the airport, was searched with his consent to
see if the killers had sought refuge there. The search proved fruitless.
2 days later, Capt. Julito Roxas and his men from the Philippine Constabulary seized the petitioner's
motorcycle and took it to the PC headquarters in Masbate. They had no search warrant. The motorcycle was
impounded on the suspicion that it was one of the vehicles used by the killers.
After investigation, the petitioner and several others were charged with multiple murder and frustrated
murder for killing Espinosa and 3 of his bodyguards.
The motorcycle, now in the possession of the Clerk of Court of Masbate, is to be used as evidence in
Criminal Case pending trial before Branch 56.
Issue:
Whether or not the motorcycle can be used as evidence considering the petitioner’s contention that
it was invalidly seized, and considering further the respondent’s contention that, the motorcycle is an
extremely mobile vehicle and can be easily dismantled or hidden, and the unique situation existing at that
time required him to place it in the custody of the PC-CIS Task Force Espinosa without first securing a search
warrant.
Held:
No.
Under Article III Section 3(2) provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the right of the people
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In this case, no search warrant was issued. The mere fact that in the private respondent's view the
crime involved is "heinous" and the victim was "a man of consequence" did not authorize disregard of the
constitutional guaranty. Neither did "superior orders" condone the omission for they could not in any case be
superior to the Constitution.
Sony Music Entertainment [Phils.], Inc. vs. Español 453 SCRA 360

Facts:
In 2000, Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) agent Lavin as they complained that Solid Laguna Corporation, together with its officers were engaged in the
replication, reproduction and distribution of Sony videograms without license and authority from the Video Regulatory
Board. Agent Lavin, in applying for a search warrant, stated before Judge Dolores Español that an unnamed person
provided them information as to the presence of pirated CDs in the premises of Solid Laguna. Solid Laguna thereafter
presented a certification that they are actually authorized to manufacture and sell CDs by the VRB. This being, the
warrants are of no force and effect because of the lack of probable cause.

I ssue:
Whether or not the evidence is admissible considering that according to the petitioners, the search warrant
was based on the testimonies of the applicant and his witnesses who conducted an investigation on the unlawful
reproduction and distribution of video tapes of copyrighted films. and considering further that according to the
respondents, SLC was still a holder of a valid and existing VRB license.
Held:
No.
Under Article III Section 3(2) provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the right of the people against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In this case, the issuance of Search Warrant No. 219-00 was, at bottom, predicated on the sworn
testimonies of persons without personal knowledge of facts they were testifying on and who relied on a
false certification issued by VRB. Based as it were on hearsay and false information, its issuance was
without probable cause and, therefore, invalid. Thus, the evidence is inadmissible.
Gamboa v. Chan

Facts:

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued A.O. 275 creating the Zenarosa Commission for
the purpose of investigating the existence of private army groups (PAG).Marynette R. Gamboa is the Mayor
of Dingras Ilocos Norte, and was investigated by PNP-Ilocos Norte who classified her as someone who
keeps a PAG. The PNP then forwarded the data gathered on her to the Zenarosa Commission.The
Zenarosa Commission then submitted a Report to the President listing people who are associated with
PAG. The report was leaked to the media and Gamboa’s name was shown before the evening news and
in print media. Gamboa filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against the PNP for violating
her right to privacy and destroying her reputation.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data is proper considering that according to Gamboa,
her right to privacy is violated and on the contrary, according to the respondents they had acted within the
bounds of their mandate in conducting the investigation and surveillance of Gamboa.

Held:

No.

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data information regarding the
person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

In this case, it is clear that the state interest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion
on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against
her was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.
Chavez vs. Gonzales

Facts:
A year following the 2004 national and local elections, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye disclosed to the
public how the opposition planned to destabilize the administration by releasing an audiotape of a mobile
phone conversation allegedly between President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Commissioner Garcillano
of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The conversation was alleged to have been audio-taped
through wire-tapping. On June 8, 2005, respondent Secretary Raul Gonzales of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) warned reporters who are in possession of copies of the said conversation, as well as those
broadcasting companies and/or publishers that they may be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
Consequently, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued a press release strengthening
the prohibition on the dissemination of the same – that the broadcasting/airing of such information shall
be just cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued
by the Commission. Petitioner Francisco Chavez filed a petition against respondent Chavez and NTC,
praying for the issuance of writs of certiorari and prohibition for the nullification of the acts, issuances
and orders of respondents – as they were outright violations of the freedom of expression and of the
press, and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.
Productions vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

The exhibition, promotion, and marketing of the movie 'The Jessica Alfaro Story' was
restrained UNTIL after the final termination and logical conclusion of the trial in the criminal action
now pending before the Paraaque Regional Trial Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the restraint is constitutional considering that according to the petitioner, it
is an exercise of freedom of speech and considering further that, according to the respondent,
would violate the sub judice rule, and Webb's constitutional rights as an accused in the criminal
case.
Held:
No, it is unconstitutional.
A clear and present danger will justify prior restraint of the constitutionally protected
freedom of speech and expression.
In this case, there is no clear and present danger in the exhibition of the movie. The
showing of ‘The Jessica Alfaro Story is a valid exercise of the freedom of speech.
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN G.R. No. 155282. January 17, 2005

Facts:
Respondent abs-cbn aired “Prosti-tuition”, an episode of the TV program “The Inside Story”
produced and hosted by respondent Legarda which depicted female students moonlighting as
prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees.

Issue:
Whether or not the airing of “Prosti-tuition” is proper considering that, according to the
petitioners, the exhibition was a violation sec 7 of PD 1986 and considering further that, according
to the respondent, it is an exercise of freedom of expression and of the press.
Held:
No.
There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of
expression and of the press has a preferred status.
In this case, the airing of the episode was a violation of Section 7 of PD 1986 which
requires authorization from MTRCB. “The Inside Story” cannot be considered a newsreel. It is
more of a public affairs program which is described as a variety of news treatment; a cross
between pure television news and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of
opinions. Certainly, such kind of program is not exempted and is within petitioner’s review power.
Mirriam College Foundation vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Some members of the Miriam College community allegedly described the contents of the
September-October 1994 issue (Vol. 41, No. 14) of Miriam College's school paper (Chi-Rho), and
magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho) as "obscene," "vulgar," "indecent," "gross,"
"sexually explicit," "injurious to young readers," and devoid of all moral values."
Issue:
Whether or not the disciplinary sanctions imposed is constitutional considering that
according to the petitioner, the school has the right to discipline its students and on the contrary,
according to the respondents they are exercising their freedom of speech or expression.
Held:
Yes, it is constitutional.
It has been held that the right of the students to free speech in school premises is not
absolute. The right to free speech must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of
the school environment.
In this case, the exercise of right to freedom of speech of the students in school premises
is restricted as to the disciplinary actions that the school may deem proper.
People vs. Go Pin

Facts:

Go Pin was charged with a violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for having exhibited
in the City of Manila at the Globe Arcade a large number of one-real 16-millimeter films about 100 feet in
length each, which are allegedly indecent and/or immoral.

Issue:

Whether or not Go Pin is liable for obscenity considering that, according to Go Pin, that paintings
and pictures of women in the nude, including sculptures of that kind are not offensive because they are
made and presented for the sake of art and considering further that, according to the defendants, the
pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes.

Held:

Yes.

In U.S v Kottinger, the defendant was accused of having offered for sale pictures of half-clad
members of the non-Christian tribes. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that he had merely
presented them in their native attire.

In this case, the accused Go Pin is an alien who is supposed to maintain a high degree of morality
while he is in the Philippines. Instead, he engaged in a very nefarious trade, which degenerates the moral
character of our youth, who are usually the regular customers of his trade. Thus, he should be liable.
People vs. Padan

Facts:

Padan exhibited immoral scenes and acts in one of the Manila nightclubs. Moreover, the
manager and ticket collector were also part of the accused for hiring the women to perform sexual
intercourse in the presence of many spectators.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendants are liable for obscenity considering that, according to the plaintiff,
their acts are against morals and decency of this kind considering further that according to defendants, it
was a show.

Held:

Yes.
In Pita v. Court of Appeals, the various judicial interpretations of “obscenity” was discussed
and held for the Court that determination of its meaning should be done on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, an actual exhibition of the sexual act, preceded by acts of lasciviousness, can have
no redeeming feature. In it, there is no room for art. One can see nothing in it but clear and unmitigated
obscenity, indecency, and an offense to public morals, inspiring and causing as it does, nothing but lust
and lewdness, and exerting a corrupting influence especially on the youth of the land.
Bayan vs. Ermita

Facts:

Police officers blocked and forcibly dispersed the groups of Bayan, Jess del Prado, and Kilusang
Mayo Uno in their rally.

Issue:

Whether or not BP No. 880 is constitutional considering that according to the petitioners, it is a
violation of their right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances and on
the contrary, according to the respondent, B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a
restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the assemblies.

Held:

Yes, it is constitutional.

Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.

In this case, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly
restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of
assemblies. Far from being insidious, "maximum tolerance" is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government.
The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally "permits" is valid because it is subject to the
constitutionally-sound "clear and present danger" standard.
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo,

Facts:

As the nation celebrated EDSA’s 20th anniversary, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a
state of national emergency. This declaration led to cancellation of all programs and activities related to the
EDSA People Power I celebration. Rally permits were revoked and warrantless arrests and take-over
of facilities, including the media, were implemented. Assemblies and rallyists were dispersed. Some of the
petitioners were arrested, and media outlets were raided.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest of David was warranted considering that according to the petitioner, it is
trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the Constitution and considering further that,
according to the respondent, it is an exercise of the full discretionary powers to the President in determining
the necessity of calling out the armed forces.

Held:

No.

The right to peaceful assembly is not to be limited except on a showing of a clear and present
danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.

In this case, David and others were arrested while they were exercising their right to peaceful
assembly. They were not committing any crime, neither was there a showing of a clear and present danger
that warranted the limitation of that right.
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila,

Facts:

In the course of its ministry, the Philippine agency of American Bible Society has been distributing
and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof throughout the Philippines. The acting City Treasurer of
Manila informed plaintiff that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November 1945,
without providing itself with the necessary Mayor’s permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance
No. 3000.

Issue:

Whether or not Ordinance No. 3000 is constitutional considering that, according to the petitioner, it
is an exercise of religion and considering further that according to the respondent, the ordinance does not
contain any provisions whatever prescribing religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and
enjoyment of any religious profession.

Held:

Yes, it is constitutional.

Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides that no law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.

In this case, Ordinance No. 3000, which requires the obtention the Mayor's permit before any
person can engage in any of the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein, does not impose
any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious
practices. However, such ordinance is not applicable to American Bible Society.
Gerona vs. Sec. of Educ.

Facts:

Pursuant to DO No. 8, the flag ceremony contemplated therein was held daily in every school,
public and private. Petitioners' children attending the Buenavista Community School, Uson, Masbate,
refused to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge contrary to the
requirement of Department Order No. 8; as a result they were expelled from school sometime in September,
1955. It is said that other children similarly situated who refused or failed to comply with the requirement
about saluting the flag are under threats of being also expelled from all public schools in the Philippines.

Issue:

Whether or not DO No.8 is constitutional considering that, according to the petitioner, the flag salute
is an image prohibited in their religious belief and considering further that according to the respondents, the
flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines.

Held:

Yes, it is constitutional.

Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides that no law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.

In this case, the requirement of observance of the flag ceremony or salute provided for in said
Department Order No. 8, does not violate the Constitutional provision about freedom of religion and
exercise of religion; that compliance with the non-discriminatory and reasonable rules and regulations and
school discipline, including observance of the flag ceremony is a prerequisite to attendance in public
schools; and that for failure and refusal to participate in the flag ceremony, petitioners were properly
excluded and dismissed from the public school they were attending.
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu

Facts:

The petitioners in both (consolidated) cases were expelled from their classes by the public school
authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge
as required by Republic Act No. 1265 and by Department Order No. 8 of DECS making the flag ceremony
compulsory in all educational institutions.

Issue:

Whether or not the expulsion of the students is proper on the grounds of non-participation in the
flag salute considering that, according to the petitioner, it is against their religion and considering further
that according to the respondents, the flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines.

Held:

No.

It has been held that the only justification for a restraint or limitation on the exercise of a right is the
existence of a clear and present danger.

In this case, they do not engage in "external acts" or behavior that would offend their countrymen
who believe in expressing their love of country through the observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly
stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose to
participate in the solemn proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant
for their expulsion.
Taruc vs. Bishop de la Cruz

Facts:

Petitioners were lay members of the Philippine Independent Church (PIC). Taruc conducted an
open mass for the town Fiesta celebrated by Fr. Ambong who was not a member of the clergy of the diocese
of Surigao. Petitioners were then expelled/excommunicated from the PIC.

Issue:

Whether or not there is a violation of religious right considering that according to Taruc, his
expulsion is without due process and considering further that according to de la Cruz, his expulsion was
due to the disobedience to the duly constituted authority in the Church.

Held:

It was held that the Church and the State is separate and distinct from each other.

In this case, the Court find it unnecessary to deal on the validity of the excommunication/expulsion
of Taruc, said acts being purely ecclesiastical matters which this Court considers to be outside the province
of the civil courts. Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious organization except for
the protection of civil or property rights. Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a civil court, and the
courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title, use, or possession of church property.
Estrada vs. Escritor

Facts:

Escritor is a court interpreter who has been living with Quilapo who is legally married to another
woman. Escritor is also a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch
Tower and Bible Tract Society where her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio is in conformity with their
religious beliefs.

Issue:

Whether or not Escritor should be found guilty of the administrative charge of “gross and immoral
conduct” for such conjugal arrangement considering that according to Estrada, it tarnishes the image of the
court and considering further that, according to Escritor, it is in accordance to the moral standards of her
religion.

Held:

No.

Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides that no law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.

In this case, Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for
exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion. In the area of religious
exercise as a preferred freedom, the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its
violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing
that such state interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.