Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

Session 2. INTRODUCTION 1. Legal Research, Defined - It is the process of finding the law, rules and regulations that govern activities of human society. - It is also defined as the investigation for information necessary to support legal decision making. 2. Legal Research, Importance -To provide competent representation* and uphold the standards of the legal profession. *requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for representation. Legal Research, Sources -Involves the use of a variety of printed* and electronic sources. *constitution, statutes, court decisions, administrative rules and scholarly commentaries (What is the ESSENCE of Legal Research? - QUIZ) Legal Research plays a very important role in recommending solutions to existing problems of the society or in solving the already solved problems in better way. It also helps to discover or invent new legal ideas and technologies for legal professionals. As we know, that legal research can either make or break a case. Therefore, legal professionals must carry out on their parts some level of legal research before filing a lawsuit and giving verdict to it. Failing to pursue research, a case fail to present its strength and verdicts may be made in favor of wrong person. Legal research helps analyze legal professionals about the case effectively and award justices to genuine victims In the end legal research method helps to impart just and genuine verdict in favor of true victims. It enables the legal system to function effectively. To effectively function the judiciary of a country, legal professionals including legal research have a crucial and very important role to play. 4. Legal Research and Bibliography, Distinguished -Legal Research is the method or system of inquiry and investigation involving the actual use of the law books, while Legal Bibliography is concerned with the study of the materials essential to the inquiry of the researcher. Legal Bibliography, Defined -It is generally defined as the science or study of law books, their history, evolution and description, their characteristics and use, including such details as their authors, publishers, dates, editions and degree of authoritativeness. 5. Legal Bibliography, Importance -The efficient use of law books can only be learned by study and application. It is an aid in the process* of analyzing a legal question. *where to find the law, in what book, and how Legal Research and Bibliography, Aim -In order to provide legal basis for a claim, one must present for consideration the authority which must be applied, and which the court is bound to apply. Sources of Law Primary Sources -recorded laws and rules which will be enforced by state *legislative actions, codes, statutes, judicial decisions, administrative laws (IRR) Secondary Sources -publications that discuss or analyze legal doctrine *treatises, commentaries, encyclopedias, legal writings (Academic Journals, IBP Journal & Lawyers Review) Finding Tools *SCRA Quick-Index Digest, Phil Juris & Lex Libris (What are the repositories of Legal Information? - QUIZ) BILE 1. Books Appearance book cover, paper used, old vs. new look Authority (PSP-VEC) Primary mandatory and imperative Secondary persuasive (not an authority at all); indexes to an authority digests, commentary, etc. Publisher Volume Edition year of publication Character Statute books Case books Search books Treaties 2. Institutional Publications 3. Law Libraries 4. Electronic Repositories SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO LEGAL RESEARCH Four Basic Steps to Legal Research: (IF-aRe-yoU = IF-R-U) 1. Identify and analyze significant facts (Compiling a descriptive statement of legally significant facts) Technique in analyzing FACTS: (T.A.R.P. RULE) Thing or subject matter Action, or a cause of action/group of defense Relief sought Persons or parties involved 2. Formulate the legal issues to be researched (Classify or categorize the problem into general, and increasingly specific, subject areas and to begin to hypothesize legal issues) 3. Research the issues presented Process of researching the issue: (OIIR) a. Organize and plan- best practice is to write down all sources to be researched under each issue to be researched. b. Identify, read and update all relevant constitutional provisions, statutes and administrative regulations c. Identify, read and update all relevant case law - i.e. laws applied in case files d. Refine the search 4. Update (to determine whether the authorities have been interpreted or altered in any way, or whether new cases, statutes or regulations have been published)

3.

6.

7.

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

Session 3 LAWS 1. Law, Defined Ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community. -St.Thomas Aquinas -A rule of conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated by legitimate authority for the common observance and benefit 2. Elements of Law a. b. c. d. 3. Ordinance for reason -guidelines of what to do or not to do For common good Promulgated by competent authority -by the legislature For the betterment of the community

4.

Sources of Laws a. Primary sources - contain the actual law. Constitutions, court decisions, cases, statutes, treaties and administrative regulations are all examples of primary sources. b. Secondary sources - are materials, which comment, explain and annotate on these primary sources. Usually, they include treaties, legal periodical, articles, legal encyclopedias, annotations, law dictionaries, commentaries, continuing legal education publications, opinions of the Attorney General, Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and other agencies Effectivity of Laws

Art. 2, Civil Code. Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of the publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided. Taada vs Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 FACTS: Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations and administrative orders. The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition. ISSUE: W.O.N. publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and enforceable. HELD: Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It would be the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden

a citizen for the transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the Official Gazette. The word shall therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the constitutional right of the people to be informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance and validity. The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application which have not been published have no force and effect. Taada vs Tuvera 146 SCRA 446 FACTS: This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24, 1985. Respondent argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval. ISSUES: W.O.N. a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not as to their publication; and W.O.N. a publication shall be made in publications of general circulation. HELD: The clause unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous publication. Laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking, all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. A law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and not to the public as a whole. All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the law. Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity. The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if it finds it impractical. The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible. Umali vs Estanislao 209 SCRA 446 FACTS: RA 7167, providing additional exemptions to taxpayers, was signed and approved on December 1991 with the clause shall take effect upon its approval and was published on January 14, 1992 in Malaya, a newspaper of general circulation. Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel the Secretary of Finance and the CIR, herein respondents, to implement RA 7167. ISSUE: W.O.N. RA 7167 took effect upon its approval or after 15 days upon its publication and if it covers taxable income for year ended 1991.

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

HELD: RA 7167 took effect on January 30, 1992, after 15 days upon publication and not upon its approval on December 1991 because the effectivity clause is defective. In the second issue, looking into the contemporaneous legislative intent, the Act was intended to adjust the poverty threshold level at the time said Act was enacted and not in the future. Farias vs Executive Secretary 417 SCRA 503 FACTS: RA 9006, The Fair Election Act, was signed into law by President Arroyo. Petitioners, members of the Minority of the House of Representatives, filed a Petition to declare said Act unconstitutional because it violated Sec. 26, Article 6 of the Constitution requiring every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title. Moreover, it is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution with regards to Sec. 16 which states that This act shall take effect immediately upon its approval. HELD: The effectivity clause of RA 9006 is defective, but it does not render the entire law defective. Under the case of Taada vs Tuvera, the phrase unless otherwise provided refers to the date and not to publication, which is indispensable.
whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution.

Thereafter, the Administrative Code of 1987 was enacted, with Section 3 of Chapter 2, Book VII thereof specifically providing that:
Filing.(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from the date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons. (2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. (Emphasis provided.)

FACTS: On July 25, 1987, two days before the convening of the First Congress, President Aquino, in her exercise of legislative power during the Provisional Constitution, issued EO 279 with the clause shall take effect immediately. EO 279 was published on August 3, 1987. ISSUE: W.O.N. EO 279 violated EO 200 where a law shall take effect after 15 days following its publication and W.O.N. legislative powers of the President ceased to exist upon the convening of the First Congress two days after EO 279s issuance, thereby making such issuance invalid. HELD: EO 279 is an effective and validly enacted statute. There is nothing in EO 200 that prevent a law from taking effect on a date other than, or before, the 15-day period after its publication. The 15-day period only applies to those laws that do not provide for its own effectivity date. When EO 279 was published, it became immediately effective upon its publication. On EO 279s validity, it was issued before the convening of the First Congress therefore the President was validly exercising her legislative powers. RP vs. Shell Petroleum The appellate court reversed the decision dated 19 August 2003 of the Office of the President OP No. Case 96-H-6574 and declared that Ministry of Finance (MOF) Circular No. 1-85 dated 15 April 1985, as amended, is ineffective for failure to comply with Section 3 of Chapter 2, Book 7 of the Admnistrtive Code of 1987, which requires the publication and filing in the Office of the National Administration Register (ONAR) of administrative issuances. As early as 1986, this Court in Tanada v. Tuvera enunciated that publication is indispensable in order that all statutes, including administrative rules that are intended to enforce or implement existing laws, attain binding force and effect, to wit:
We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, w h i c h shall begin fifteen days after publication u n l e s s a d i f f e r e n t effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

La Bugal-blaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs Ramos 421 SCRA 148

Under the doctrine of Tanada v. Tuvera, the MOF Circular No. 185, as amended, is one of those issuances which should be published before it becomes effective since it is intended to enforce Presidential Decree No. 1956. The said circular should also comply with the requirement stated under Section 3 of Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 filing with the ONAR in the University of the Philippines Law Center for rules that are already in force at the time the Administrative Code of 1987 became effective. These requirements of publication and filing were put in place as safeguards against abuses on the part of lawmakers and as guarantees to the constitutional right to due process and to information on matters of public concern and, therefore, require strict compliance.

Session 4. STATUTORY LAW Statute, Defined -A written will of the legislature expressed according to the form necessary to constitute it a law of the state and rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms and solemnities Classes of Statute Law The 1987 Constitution Constitution, Defined -The fundamental law or supreme law of the land promulgated by the people. A law, to which all other laws must conform -The written enactment by the direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the people Treaties and International Agreements Treaty, Defined -An agreement between or among states which generally governs their mutual conduct with one another. -An international agreement embodied in single, formal instrument made between entities, both or all of which are subjects of international law possessed of international personality and treaty making capacity, and intended to create rights and obligations, or to establish relationships, governed by international law. (In case of irreconcilable differences between a treaty and a statute, which will prevail? QUIZ) In a situation, . . . where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be
made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal court . . .for the

Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances. And, yet, so incongruously, this formulation arrives at the following conclusion: Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statue may repeal a treaty. . . . Two contradictory principles find themselves as bedfellows in the same ponencia infact in the same paragraph. The first one upholds the supremacy of statutory or municipal law as a source of law, lex superior derogat inferior. By its nature as a distinct source of law a statute always prevails over a treaty rule. Whereas in the second lex posterior derogat priori the later-in-time takes precedence; in which case the statutoryor municipal law prevails only when it is enacted later than the treaty, assuming their conflict to be irreconcilable.

A treaty in the constitutional sense becomes valid and effective if two factors converge, namely: a. It has entered into force by its own provisions; b. It has been concurred in by the Senate as required by the Treaty Clause. Statutes Proper, Parts Title -gives the general statement of the subject matter Lidasan vs COMELEC 21 SCRA 496 FACTS: RA 4790 An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur was signed into law consisting of 21 barrios, 12 of which are from the municipalities of Parang and Buldon, province of Cotabato. The Office of the President recommended the COMELEC to suspend the operation of the statute until clarified. Notwithstanding, the COMELEC declared that the statute should be implemented unless declared unconstitutional by the SC. Hence the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Bara Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of Parang, Cotabato and a qualified voter. HELD: RA 4790 is unconstitutional because it violates the provision that no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill Two-pronged purpose combined in one statute: It creates the municipality of Dianaton purportedly from 21 barrios in the towns of Butig and Balabagan, both in the province of Lanao del Sur; and It also dismembers two municipalities in Cotabato, a province different from Lanao del Sur RATIONALE: Title to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import of the single subject thereof. A title which is so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act, is bad. (Test of the sufficiency of a title QUIZ) a. The test of the sufficiency of a title is whether or not it is misleading; and, which technical accuracy is not essential, and the subject need not be stated in express terms where it is clearly inferable from the details set forth, a title which is so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act, is bad. b. In determining sufficiency of particular title its substance rather than its form should be considered, and the purpose of the constitutional requirement, of giving notice to all persons, interested, should be kept in mind by the court.

FACTS: Fiscal Ello filed before the lower court separate informations against 16 persons charging them with squatting penalized by PD 772. The informations were dismissed on the grounds that (1) entry should be by force, intimidation or threat and not through stealth and strategy as alleged; (2) PD 772 does not apply to the cultivation of a grazing land. Motion for consideration was likewise denied. The phrase and for other purposes in the decree does not include agricultural purposes because its preamble does not mention the Secretary of Agriculture and makes reference to the affluent class. Hence, the appeal to this Court. HELD: Lower courts decision affirmed. The decree does not apply to pasture lands because its preamble shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in urban communities or more particularly to illegal constructions in squatting areas made by well-to-do individuals. The squatting complained of involves pasture lands in rural areas. On the other hand, it is punished by RA 947 RATIONALE: The rule of ejusdem generis does not apply to PD 772 where the intent of decree is unmistakable. Aglipay vs Ruiz 64 SCRA 201

Preamble -states the reason for, or the objects of the enactment People vs Echaves 95 SCRA 663

FACTS: Mons. Aglipay sought an issuance of prohibition from the court to prevent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress which violates the provision that no public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied or used, directly or indirectly, for the benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination or the principle of separation of church and state. HELD: Petition denied. RA 4052 which appropriates a sum of P60,000 for the said stamps contemplates no religious purpose in view. Stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church; nor money derived from the sale given to that church. Moreover, what is emphasized is not the Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila as the seat of that congress. RATIONALE: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty and not mere religious toleration. Religious freedom, as a Constitutional mandate, is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs Enacting Clause -indicates the authority which promulgates the enactment Purview (Body) of the statute -contains the subject matter of the statute and shall embrace only one subject Provisos -acting as a restraint upon or as qualification of the generality of the language which it follows Interpretative Clause -legislature defines its own language or prescribes rules for its construction Repealing Clause -announces the legislative intent to terminate or revoke another statute Saving Clause -restricts a repealing act and preserves existing powers, rights and pending proceedings from the effects of the repeal Separability Clause -if for any reason, any section or provision is held to be unconstitutional or invoked, the other section or provision of the law shall not be affected thereby. Effectivity Clause -when the law shall take effect (Article 2 of the New
Civil Code)

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

Statutes enacted by the Legislature Statute Proper, Kinds o General -applies to persons, entities, things as a class omitting no one o Special -particular persons, entities, things o Local -specific, within territorial limits o Public affects public at large, or all the persons or things within a jurisdiction. o Private relates to, concerns and affects a particular individual. o Penal -imposes punishment of an offense o Remedial -remedy former laws, reform or extend rights o Substantive -creates, defines, regulates the rights and duties of parties o Labor -welfare of laborers, governs employeremployee relationship o Tax -exaction of money from the state to achieve legislative or general objective o Mandatory -non-compliance renders act void or illegal o Directory -non-compliance does not invalidate act As to performance o Permanent -continues in performance until altered or repealed o Temporary -fixed for a specified period o Prospective -operates after it takes effect o Retrospective -affects acts already committed before effectivity o Repealing -revokes or terminates another statute o Amendatory -addition to the original law for improvement (modifies or qualifies) o Reference -refers to other statutes and make them applicable to the subject of the new legislation o Declaratory -establishes its meaning & correct construction HIERARCHY OF LAWS (CT-SLR) Constitution Treaties Statutes Local Legislations Rules of Courts Classes of Philippine Laws Republic Acts (1900-1935) Commonwealth Act (1935-1946) Batas Pambansa (1984-1986) Presdential Decree (1972-1986) Executive Order (1986-1987) Republic Act (1946-1972, 1987-present) 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

a) b) c) d) e) a) b) c) d) e) f)

together with the amendments, if any, proposed by the committee, unless the reading is dispensed with by a majority vote of the House. Debates A general debate is then opened after the Second Reading and amendments may be proposed by any member of Congress. The insertion of changes or amendments shall be done in accordance with the rules of either House. The House may either kill or pass the bill. Printing and Distribution After approval of the bill on Second Reading, the bill is then ordered printed in its final form and copies of it are distributed among the members of the House three days before its passage, except when the bill was certified by the President. A bill approved on Second Reading shall be included in the calendar of bills for Third Reading. Third Reading At this stage, only the title of the bill is read. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto is allowed and the vote thereon is taken immediately thereafter, and yeas and nays entered in the journal. A member may abstain. As a rule, a majority of the members constituting a quorum is sufficient to pass a bill. Referral to Other House If approved, the bill is then referred to the other House where substantially the same procedure takes place. Submission to Joint Bicameral Committee Differences, if any, between the Houses bill and the Senates amended version, and vice versa are submitted to a conference committee of members of both Houses for compromise. If either House accepts the changes made by the other, no compromise is necessary. Submission to the President a bill approved on Third Reading by both Houses shall be printed and forthwith transmitted to the President for his action approval or disproval. If the President does not communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within 30 days from receipt thereof, it shall become a law as if he signed it. Bill repassed by Congress over the veto of the President automatically becomes a law.

How a bill becomes a Law Steps (Father SD, Pastor SS = FR.SD-PTR.SS) Based on Atty. Dellosas Discussion 1. First Reading - Any member of either house may present a proposed bill, signed by him, for First Reading and reference to the proper committee. During the First Reading, the principal author of the bill may propose the inclusion of additional authors thereof. 2. Referral to Appropriate Committee Immediately after the First Reading, the bill is referred to the proper committee/s for study and consideration. If disapproved in the committee, the bill dies a natural death unless the House decides otherwise, following the submission of the report. 3. Second Reading If the committee reports the bill favorably, the bills is forwarded to the Committee on Rules so that it may be calendared for deliberation on Second Reading. At this stage, the bill is read for the second time in its entirely,

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

Session 5 CASE LAW Case Law, Defined Case Law, defined is the body of available writings explaining the verdicts in a case. Case law is most often created by judges in their rulings when they write their decisions and give the reasoning behind them, as well as citing precedents in other cases and statutes that had a bearing on their decision. A single case may generate virtually no written interpretations or opinions, or, as is the case with many that come before the Supreme Court, it may generate a number of opinions as it works its way through various lower-circuit courts. These collected opinions can be referred to in the future by other judges when they make their rulings on similar cases, allowing the law to remain relative consistent. Case law is often referred to as common law in many regions of the world, and is also known as judge-made law. This latter term derives from the fact that, while legislation is technically passed in most countries by a separate legislative branch, courts are able to exercise a moderate amount of quasilegislative power through the use of precedent and case law. Case law is viewed by most people as crucial part of a functioning judiciary, as it allows for courts to transform decisions that may have taken a great deal of time and energy to arrive at into a sort of de facto law, making future cases much easier to decide. Classes of Case Law Decision Proper Supreme Court Decisions Court of Appeals Decisions Sandiganbayan Decisions Court of Tax Appeals Decisions Regional Trial Courts Decisions Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Decisions Subordinate Decisions Decisions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Decisions of Administrative Agencies Exercising Quasi-Judicial Powers such as: a. Commission on Elections b. Civil Service Commissions c. Commission on Audit d. National Labor Relations Commission e. Insurance Commission f. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board g. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Supreme Court En Banc En Banc means in the bench or full bench. It refers to a session where the entire membership of a court will participate in the decision. The Supreme Court now may sit En Banc or in three divisions. A decision or ruling issued by a division of the Supreme Court has the same authority as that issued by the Supreme Court En Banc. By sitting in divisions, the Supreme Court further increases is capacity to dispose of cases pending before it. En Banc Cases. Under Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, where such referral is made, the Court en banc may either accept the case or return the same to the Division, depending upon the factual and legal backdrop of the controversy. In the Resolution of the Court dated November 18, 1993, the following cases are considered as en banc cases, or those t hat may be referred to the Court en banc: Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty (N.B. Death Penalty Law repaled) Cases raising novel questions of law Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and Commissions on Audit Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000 or both Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the Court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc

All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention.

Republic Vs Express Telecommunication Co., Inc. 373 SCRA 317 January 15, 2002 Ynares-Santiago, J: 1992 International Communications Corporation (Now Bayan Telecommunication) filed an application with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity (CPCN) to operate digital cellular Mobile System/Service (CMTS) In a NTC order dated Dec. 1993, it states there that the case be ordered ARCHIVED without prejudice to its reinstatement if and when the requisite frequency becomes available. Bayantel filed an Ex Parte Motion to Revive Case, citing that availability of new frequency and Service providers are needed. NTC granted the motion on Feb. 2000 Respondent Express Telecommunication filed an opposition (Motion to dismiss) for Bayantel application. He contended that there were no available radio frequencies that could accommodate a new CMTS. NTC issued an Order granting in favor of Bayantel a provisional authority to operate CMTS services as there is a need of telephone service provider and Bayantel is legally, technically and financially qualified, as well as to ensure healthy competition among CMTS providers.

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

Extelcom filed with CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking the annulment of the order of NTC. CA ruled in favor of Extelcom and annulled the NTC Memorandum Bayantel filed Motion for Reconsideration. CA denied all MR of the parties because of lack of merit Bayantel and NTC filed petition for review. The court consolidate the 2 petitions. and FAIR payment of the properly taken from the owner by the government. The justification of the government on its power of expropriation is for (1) public use (2) with just compensation. The court ruled that in cases of conflicting jurisprudence, they shall be harmonized as to equally apply and treat them not one from the other. Give effect to both. LBP erred in applying LBP v Celeda (court set aside just compensation they considered one factor, which is the patent disparity of the prices gives to the respondent) Whereas RTC considered all factors. The SC upheld the RTC decision because of this that they properly arrived at the evaluation of just compensation considering their nature and improvements. LBP erred in applying LBP vs Banal (Failure of RTC to observe basic rules of procedures in just compensation.) because what RTC did is they conducted ocular inspection, regular having in compliance with all the decisions, rules and procedures. The court reminded LBPs counsel that the Court En Banc is not an appellate tribunal to which appeals from Division of the Court may be taken The decision of the Division of the Court is as Good as SC en Banc itself. Decision of the Division of Court can be referred only to court En Banc on special specified grounds with courts discretion MR partially granted; 12% rate decided, previous case was remanded to TRC; attorneys fees deleted.

Issue: Whether the 1978 or 1993 NTC Rules of Practice and Procedure should govern in the approval of Bayantels application Ruling: NTC was created by EO 546. It has the sole authority to issue Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). Such includes authority to determine areas of operations. In granting Bayantel-provisional authority to operate CMTS the NTC applied Rule 15 Sec. 3 of 1978 Rules of Practice of Procedure. Board may grant on motion of the pleader or on its own initiative. The respondent erred in contending that NTC should have not apply the 1978 Rules of Practice because 1993 Rules of Practice should have applied, wherein the phrase on its own initiative was deleted. Therefore, NTC is clothed with sufficient discretion to act on this matter, the need for a healthy competitive environment in telecommunications is sufficient justification to issue Bayantel the CPCN. NTC acted within its jurisdiction. CA erred in annulling the order of the NTC granting Bayantel a provisional authority because as a general rule purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. The exception is where the issuing authority Apo Fruits vs. CA 541 SCRA 117 December 19, 2007 Chico-Nazario, J: Facts: Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation Inc. (HPI) were owners of J parcels of land in Davao. Oct. 1995, they voluntarily sold properties to Department of Agrarian Reform 86.9M (AFC) and 164.40M (HPI) as payment for the lands but the 2 didnt agree with the price Complaint for determination of Just compensation was filed to DAR adjudication Board. The board failed to render decision in 3 years. 26 M (AFC) and 45 M (HPI)was given as downpayment Another complaint for determination of just compensation was filed in RTC Davao. Decision In favor of AFC and HPI the trial court ruled that purchase price must be higher than what the DAR offered with the 12% interest rate from the time complaint was filed. DAR appealed to CA. CA reversed RTC decision. DC reversed CA ruling and affirm RTC decision with modification that 12% interest must be deleted. SC upheld RTC decision. Thus LBP filed a motion for reconsideration to SC Issue: 1. Whether or not there was a just compensation 2. Whether or not SC erred in upholding the RTC decision Ruling: No, the land was taken without just compensation. RTCs finding must be sustained for it based its ruling on evidence. (If referral to SC en banc derived, SC decision maintained) DAR failed to present evidence to prove/support that lower purchase price should be given to AFC and HPI It is unjust and oppressive to take/expropriate without giving just compensation. For just compensation is defined as FULL

OLYMPIC MINES AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., vs. PLATINUM GROUP METALSCORPORATION. FACTS: Olympic was granted "Mining Lease Contracts" by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) covering mining are as located in Palawan. With the passage of Republic Act No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (Mining Act), these mining lease contracts became the subject of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications by Olympic. Olympic entered into an Operating Agreement with Platinum, under which Platinum was given the exclusive right to control, possess, manage/operate, and conduct mining operations, and to market or dispose mining products found in subject mining areas for a period of twenty-five years. In return, Platinum bound itself to pay Olympic a royalty fee of 2 of the gross revenues. Olympic made various attempts to terminate the Operating Agreement and to deprive Platinum of its rights and interests over the subject mining areas, alleging that Platinum committed gross violations of the Operating Agreement. Olympic filed administrative cases against Platinum intent with the intent to terminate the Operating Agreement and to revoke Platinums Small Scale Mining Permits. During the pendency of these cases, Olympic transferred its MPSA applications to Citinickel via a Deed of Assignment without notice to or the consent of Platinum, which was approved by the Regional Director of Mines and Geosciences Bureau. Platinum filed a complaint for quieting of title, damages, breach of contract, and specific performance against Olympic before the RTC of Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Olympic filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the issues raised in the complaint, as these involved a mining dispute requiring the technical expertise of the Panel of Arbitrators (POA)

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

ISSUE: Whether the RTC or the POA has jurisdiction over Platinums complaint for quieting of title, breach of contract, damages and specific performance. RULING: RTC has jurisdiction. As held in the case of Gonzales v. ClimaxArimco Mining, The resolution of the validity or voidness of the contracts remains a legal or judicial question as it requires the exercise of judicial function. It requires the ascertainment of what laws are applicable to the dispute, the interpretation and application of those laws, and the rendering of a judgment based thereon. Clearly, the dispute is not a mining conflict. It is essentially judicial. The complaint was not merely for the determination of rights under the mining contracts since the very validity of those contracts is put in issue. Arbitration before the Panel of Arbitrators is proper only when there is a disagreement between the parties as to some provisions of the contract between them, which needs the interpretation and the application of that particular knowledge and expertise possessed by members of that Panel. Decisions of the Supreme Court on mining disputes have recognized a distinction between (1) the primary powers granted by pertinent provisions of law to the then Secretary of Lim vs. Pacquing [G.R. No. 115044. January 27, 1995] Ponente: PADILLA, J. FACTS: The Charter of the City of Manila was enacted by Congress on 18 June 1949 (R.A. No. 409). On 1 January 1951, Executive Order No. 392 was issued transferring the authority to regulate jai-alais from local government to the Games and Amusements Board (GAB). On 07 September 1971, however, the Municipal Board of Manila nonetheless passed Ordinance No. 7065 entitled An Ordinance Authorizing the Mayor To Allow And Permit The Associated Development Corporation To Establish, Maintain And Operate A Jai-Alai In The City Of Manila, Under Certain Terms And Conditions And For Other Purposes. On 20 August 1975, Presidential Decree No. 771 was issued by then President Marcos. The decree, entitled Revoking All Powers and Authority of Local Government(s) To Grant Franchise, License or Permit And Regulate Wagers Or Betting By The Public On Horse And Dog Races, Jai-Alai Or Basque Pelota, And Other Forms Of Gambling, in Section 3 thereof, expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits issued by local governments. In May 1988, Associated Development Corporation (ADC) tried to operate a Jai-Alai. The government through Games and Amusement Board intervened and invoked Presidential Decree No. 771 which expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling facilities (including JaiAlai) by local governments. ADC assails the constitutionality of P.D. No. 771. ISSUE: Whether or not P.D. No. 771 is violative of the equal protection and non-impairment clauses of the Constitution. HELD: NO. P.D. No. 771 is valid and constitutional. RATIO: Presumption against unconstitutionality. There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed, altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the executive still exercised legislative powers). Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADCs franchise by reason of the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Courts First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution. And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADCs possession of a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents. (Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90)

CABUAY V. MALVAR -No digest Decision It is only the decisions of the Supreme Court that establish jurisprudence or doctrines in the Philippine Jurisdiction. It is important to study the decision of the Supreme Court because of the Doctrine of Binding Precedent or Stare Decisis. An opinion is a statement by a court of the reasons for the decision of a case. It is the decision and not the opinion of the court which settles the point of law involved and makes the precedent. Only the Supreme Court itself could overturn its decision though an En Banc Decision (decision decided when all justices of the Supreme Court are present). A decision of a court in its judgment of a case may be described in three different senses: 1. It may refer to the entire case 2. It may include both the conclusion reached and the reasons for reaching it 3. It may mean only the final conclusion in relation to the case. Fortich vs Corona Facts: Concerns the MR of the courts resolution dated November 17, 1998 and motion to refer the case to the Court en banc. In previous case, the Court voted two-two on the separate motions for reconsideration, as a result of which the decision was affirmed. The Court noted in a resolution dated January 27, 1999 that the movants have no legal personality to seek redress before the Court as their motion to intervene was already denied and that the motion to refer the case to the Court en banc is akin to a second MR which is prohibited. In this motion, both respondents and intervenors prayed that the case be referred to the case en banc in as much as their earlier MR was resolved by a vote of two-two, the required number to carry a decision under the Constitution (3 votes) was not met. Issue: WON failure to meet the three votes justifies the referral of the case to the court en banc Held: No Ratio: A careful reading of the constitutional provision reveals the intention of the framers to draw a distinction between cases, on the one hand, and matters, on the other hand, such that cases are decided while matters, which include motions, are resolved. Otherwise put, the word decided must refer to cases; while the word resolved must refer to matters, applying the rule of en bancbfor decision whenever the required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as in

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a MR. Hence, the second sentence eof the provision speaks only of case and not matter. The reason is simple. Article VIII, Section 4(3)pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the division and the losing party files a MR, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for its reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed. Such was the ruling of this Court in the Resolution of November 17, 1998. Issue: WON the referral to the court en banc is justified on the ground that the issues are of first impression Held: No Ratio: The issues presented before us by the movants are matters of no extraordinary import to merit the attention of the Court en banc The issue of whether or not the power of the local government units to reclassify lands is subject to the approval of the DAR is no longer novel, this having been decided by this Court in the case of Province of Camarines Sur, et al. vs. Court of Appeals wherein we held that local government units need not obtain the approval of the DAR to convert or reclassify lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use .Moreover, the Decision sought to be reconsidered was arrived at by a unanimous vote of all five (5)members of the Second Division of this Court. Stated otherwise, this Second Division is of the opinion that the matters raised by movants are nothing new and do not deserve the consideration of the Court en banc. Thus, the participation of the full Court in the resolution of movants motions for reconsideration would be inappropriate. Issue: WON the referral to the court en banc partakes of the nature of a second MR Held: Yes Ratio: The contention, therefore, that our Resolution of November 17, 1998 did not dispose of the earlier MR of the Decision dated April 24, 1998 is flawed. Consequently, the present MR necessarily partakes of the nature of a second motion for reconsideration which, according to the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 56, Section 4, in relation to Rule 52, Section 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is prohibited. True, there are exceptional cases when this Court may entertain a second motion for reconsideration, such as where there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons. Even then, we have ruled that such second MRs must be filed with express leave of court first obtained. In this case, not only did movants fail to ask for prior leave of court, but more importantly, they have been unable to show that there are exceptional reasons for us to give due course to their second motions for reconsideration. Stripped of the arguments for referral of this incident to the Court en banc, the motions subject of this resolution are nothing more but rehashes of the motions for reconsideration which have been denied in the Resolution of November 17, 1998. To be sure, the allegations contained therein have already been raised before and passed upon by this Court in the said Resolution. Issue: WON the Win-Win Resolution was valid Held: No Ratio: This refers to the resolution by authority of the President modifying the Decision dated 29 March1996 of the OP through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres. NQSRMDCs (Norberto Quisumbing) Application for Conversion is approved only with respect to 44 hectares as recommended by the DA. The remaining100 hectares found to be suitable for agriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer beneficiaries (FBs) in accordance with RA 6657 The resolution is void and of no legal effect considering that the March 29, 1996 decision of the Office of the President had already become final and executory even prior to the filing of the MR which became the basis of the said Win-Win Resolution. While it may be true that on its face the nullification of the Win-Win Resolution was grounded on a procedural rule pertaining to the reglementary period to appeal or move for reconsideration, the underlying consideration therefor was the protection of the substantive rights of petitioners. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case. In other words, the finality of the March 29, 1996 OP Decision accordingly vested appurtenant rights to the land in dispute on petitioners as well as on the people of Bukidnon and other parts of the country who stand to be benefited by the development of the property. Before finally disposing of these pending matters, we feel it necessary to rule once and for all on the legal standing of intervenors in this case. In their present motions, intervenors insist that they are real parties in interest inasmuch as they have already been issued certificates of land ownership award, orCLOAs, and that while they are seasonal farmworkers at the plantation, they have been identified by the DAR as qualified beneficiaries of the property. These arguments are, however, nothing new as in fact they have already been raised in intervenors earlier motion for reconsideration of our April 24, 1998 Decision. Again as expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Martinez, intervenors, who are admittedly not regular but seasonal farmworkers, have no legal or actual and substantive interest over the subject land inasmuch as they have no right to own the land. Rather, their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of the land. Moreover, the Win-Win Resolution itself states that the qualified beneficiaries have yet to be carefully and meticulously determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Absent any definitive finding of the DAR, intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with sufficient interest in the controversy as to be qualified to intervene in this case. Likewise, the issuance of the CLOA's to them does not grant them the requisite standing in view of the nullity of the Win-Win Resolution. No legal rights can emanate from a resolution that is null and void. Melo:By mandate of the Constitution, cases heard by a division when the required majority of at least 3 votes in the division is not obtained are to be heard and decided by the Court En Banc. The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission disclose that if the case is not decided in a division by a majority vote, it goes to the Court En Banc and not to a larger division In a situation where a division of 5 has only 4 members, the 5th member having inhibited himself or is otherwise not in a position to participate, or has retired, a minimum of 3 votes would still be required before there can be any valid decision or resolution by

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22

Legal Research Reviewer-MAKASIAR NOTES

that division. There may, then, be instances when a deadlock may occur, i.e., the votes tied at 2-2. It is my humble view that under the clear and unequivocal provisions of the 1986 Constitution, if the required majority is not reached in a division, the case should automatically go to Court En Banc. I submit that the requirement of 3 votes equally applies to motions for reconsideration because the provision contemplates cases or matters (which for me has no material distinction insofar as divisions are concerned) heard by a division, and a motion for reconsideration cannot be divorced from the decision in a case that it seeks to be reconsidered. Consequently, if the required minimum majority of 3 votes is not met, the matter of the motion for reconsideration has to be heard by the Court En Banc, as mandated by the Constitution (par. 3, Sec. 4, Art. VIII). To say that the motion is lost in the division on a 2-2 vote, isto construe something which cannot be sustained by a reading of the Constitution. To argue that a motion for reconsideration is not a case but only a matter which does not concern a case, so that, even though the vote thereon in the division is 2-2, the matter or issue is not required to elevated to the Court En Banc, is to engage in a lot of unfounded hair splitting.

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Matthew 21:22