SECTION 1

VESTED RIGHTS
Quiao vs Quaio
G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012
While one may not be deprived of his vested right, he may loss the same if there is due process
and such deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence.

DUE PROCESS
Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. vs Takenaka Corporation
G.R. No. 180245, July 4, 2012
It is an oft-repeated principle that where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or
pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.

Pangilinan vs. Balatbat

G.R. No. 170787

September 12, 2012

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.

Arroyo vs. Department of Justice

G.R. No. 199082

September 18, 2012

The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to
eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences
among men, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons under like
circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate
discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among
men, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons under like circumstances
and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.

Publication is a necessary component of procedural due process to give as wide publicity as possible
so that all persons having an interest in the proceedings may be notified thereof.
Taada v. Tuvera requires publication of administrative rules that have the force and effect of law and
the Revised Administrative Code requires the filing of such rules with the U.P. Law Center as facets of the
constitutional guarantee of procedural due process, to prevent surprise and prejudice to the public who
are legally presumed to know the law.
The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It merely requires that all
persons under like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced.

Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Company vs. Energy Regulatory Commission

G.R. No. 192117, September 18, 2012
Publication is a basic postulate of procedural due process. The purpose of publication is to duly
inform the public of the contents of the laws which govern them and regulate their activities.
Procedural due process demands that administrative rules and regulations be published in order to
be effective.

Heirs of Wilson P. Gamboa vs. Teves

G.R. No. 176579, October 9, 2012
View that since PLDT and the foreign stockholders were not impleaded as indispensable parties
to the case, the majority would want to indirectly execute its decision which it could not execute directly.
The principle of due process of law "contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered, affecting ones person or property.

Arroyo vs. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc.

G.R. No. 175155, October 22, 2012
As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the
demands of due process are sufficiently met. What is offensive to due process is the denial of this
opportunity to be heard.

SECTION 2
PROBABLE CAUSE
Casing vs Ombudsman
G.R. No. L-192334, June 13, 2012
A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure
a conviction.

Elma vs Jacobi
G.R. No. 155996, June 27, 2012
1. The Supreme Court has consistently adopted the policy of non-interference in the
conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave the investigating prosecutor sufficient
latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to
establish probable cause.
For purposes of filing information in court, probable cause refers to facts and circumstances sufficient to
engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondents probably
committed it.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GODOFREDO MARIANO Y FELICIANO AND ALLAN DORINGO y
GUNAN
G.R. NO. 191193, NOVEMBER 14, 2012
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit and offense;
b. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

HPS SOFTWARE AND COMMUNICATION CORPORATION and HYMAN YAP vs. PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, JOSE JORGE E. CORPUZ, in his capacity as the CHIEF OF THE
PNP- SPECIAL TASK FORCE GROUP VISAYAS, PHILIP YAP, FATIMA CIMAFRANCA, and
EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES , INC., respondents.
G.R. NO. 170217, DECEMBER 10, 2012
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HPS SOFTWARE AND
COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, including its INCORPORATORS, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS:
PHILIP YAP, STANLEY YAP, ELAINE JOY YAP, JULIE SY, HYMAN YAP and OTHER PERSONS UNDER
THEIR EMPLOY, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, IN THE PREMISES LOCATED AT HPS BUILDING
PLARIDEL ST., BRGY. ALANG- ALANG, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU, respondents.
G. R NO. 170694, DECEMBER 10, 2012
A search warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons of things to be
seized in order for it to be valid, otherwise, it is considered as a general warrant which is proscribed by
both jurisprudence and the 1987 Constitution.

SECTION 3
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and Personal Data
Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the
Judiciary

1. The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public
disclosure and honesty in public service.
2. The Constitution also provides that the peoples right to know is limited to matters of public
concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Jurisprudence
has provided the following limitations to that right: (1) national security matters and
intelligence information; (2) trade secrets and banking transactions; (3) criminal matters; and
(4) other confidential information such as confidential or classified information officially known
to public officers and employees by reason of their office and not made available to the public
as well as diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions
of either house of Congress, and the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.
3. While public officers in the custody or control of public records have the discretion to regulate
the manner in which records may be inspected, examined or copied by interested persons,
such discretion does not carry with it the authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination,
or copying of the records.

Under the third paragraph, Section 3, Article XIII, of the Constitution, the State shall promote the principle
shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
setting disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster
industrial peace.

SECTION 4
Garcia , Jr. vs. Manrique
G.R. No. 186592, October 10, 2012
The constitutional guaranties of free speech and press is not a shield against scurrilous publications,
which are heaved against the courts with no apparent reason but to trigger doubt on their integrity based
on some imagined possibilities.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, and must occasionally be balanced with the requirements of
equally important public interests, such as the maintenance of the integrity of the courts and orderly
functioning of the administration of justice.
The making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an exercise of free speech;
rather, it is an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised
as free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot be used to impair the independence and efficiency of
courts or public respect therefore and confidence therein.

SECTION 7
Initiatives fo dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. ( IDEALS) vs. Power
Sector Assets and Liabilities and Management Corporation ( PSALM)
G.R. No. 192088, October 9, 2012
The peoples constitutional right to information is intertwined with the governments constitutional duty
of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest.
The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a
final contract.

Where the issue revolves around the peoples right to information, the requisite legal standing is met by
the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen. If the petition is anchored on the peoples right to information
on matters of public concern, any citizen can be a real party in interest.

SECTION 9
JUST COMPENSATION
Land Bank of the Philippines vs Heirs of Juan Lopez
G.R. No. 171038, June 20, 2012
In the determination of just compensation, the Special Agrarian Reform Court (RTC-SACs) are
guided by the factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657.
The issue of the correctness of the average selling price data used in this case is clearly a
question of fact that can only be determined by a review of the evidence presented by the parties.

Department of Agrarian Reform vs Goduco

G.R. No. 174007, June 27, 2012
1. It held that the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be
paid private respondents has yet to be settled.
2. Pursuant to the rule-making power of DAR under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657, a
formula was outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998 in computing just
compensation for lands subject acquisition whether under voluntary offer to sell (VOS) or
compulsory acquisition (CA), to wit: LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1) Where: LV
= Land Value CNI = Capitalized Net Income CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value
per tax Declaration.
3. The court ruled that when just compensation is determined under R.A. No. 6657, no
incremental, compounded interest of six percent (6%) per annum shall be assessed.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Heirs of Maximo Puyat and Gloria Puyat
G.R. No. 175055, June 27, 2012

1. When the government takes property pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, but
does not pay the landowner his just compensation until after RA 6657 has taken effect in
1988, it becomes more equitable to determine the just compensation using Republic Act
(RA) No. 6657.
2. The implementing Rules of RA 9700 thus authorize the valuation of lands in accordance
with the old Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended (prior to further amendment by RA
9700), so long as the claim folders for such lands have been received by Land Bank prior
to its amendment by RA 9700 in 2009.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Nable

G.R. No. 176692, June 27, 2012
1. Section 4, Article XIII, of the Constitution has mandated the implementation of an
agrarian reform program for the distribution of agricultural lands to landless farmers
subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowners.
2. The Congress has thereby required that any determination of just compensation should
consider the following factors, namely: (a) the cost of the acquisition of the land; (b) the
current value of like properties; (c) the nature, actual use and income of the land; (d) the
sworn valuation by the owner; (e) the tax declarations; (f) the assessment made by
government assessors; (g) the social and economic benefits contributed to the property
by the farmers and farmworkers and by the Government; and (h) the fact of the nonpayment of any taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the
land.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Montalvan

G.R. No. 190336, June 27, 2012
The Special Agrarian Courts (SAC) has been statutorily determined to have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation due to landowners under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Plopenio vs Department of Agrarian Reform

G.R. No. 161090, July 4, 2012

The decision of the adjudicator on land valuation and on the preliminary determination and
payment of just compensation shall be brought directly to the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) within 15 days
from receipt of the notice thereof.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Montinola - Escarilla and Co., Inc.

G.R. No. 178046, June 13, 2012
For purposes of determining just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is
determined by its character and price at the time of taking.

SECTION 11
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 72 and 22, Narvacan,
Ilocos Sur.
1. Under the 1987 Constitution, trial judges are mandated to decide and resolve cases within 90
days from submission.
2. Without an extension granted by the Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the
required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.

Canon 6 and 7 of the Canons Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition
and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts.

SECTION 12

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

Philcomsat Holdings Corporation vs Senate of the Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 180308, June 19, 2012
The right to be assisted by counsel can only be invoked by a person under custodial investigation
suspected for the commission of a crime, and therefore attaches only during such custodial investigation.

Philcomsat Holdings Corporation vs Senate of the Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 180308, June 19, 2012
Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution, provides as follows: The Senate or the House of the
Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by
such inquiries shall be respected.

The right to be assisted by counsel can only be invoked by a person under custodial investigation
suspected for the commission of a crime, and therefore attaches only during such custodial investigation.

SECTION 13
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
People vs Climaco
G.R. No. L-199403, June 13, 2012
The Constitution guarantees the accused presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Qui v. People
G.R. No. 196161, September 26, 2012
Under the present rule, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The allowance of bail pending appeal

should be exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons, considering that
the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court.

SECTION 14
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
Esguerra vs Valle Verde Country Club Inc.3
G.R. No. L-173012, June 6, 2012
The existence of an actual, formal trial-type hearing, although preferred, is not absolutely
necessary to satisfy the employees right to be heard.
.
People vs Maraorao
G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012
The Constitution presumes a person innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

Miguel vs Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 172035, July 4, 2012
It is well settled that to be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard
also through pleadings.

SECTION 16
Maturan vs. Gutierrez-Torres
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ September 19, 2012

The Constitution mandates all justices and judges to be efficient and speedy in the disposition of the
cases or matters pending in their courts.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to "devote their
professional activity to judicial duties, which include xxx the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of decisions xxx," and to "perform all judicial duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."
All judges should be mindful of the duty to decide promptly, knowing that the publics faith and
confidence in the Judiciary are no less at stake if they should ignore such duty.
A judge like Judge Gutierrez-Torres should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in
the discharge of the obligation to promptly administer justice. She must cultivate a capacity for promptly
rendering her decisions. Should she anticipate that she would need a period longer than what the
Constitution and the issuances of the Court prescribe within which to render her decision or resolution,
she should request a proper extension of the period from the Court, through the OCA, and lay out in the
request the justification for her inability.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Castaneda

A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316, October 9, 2012
A judge who fails to decide cases within the reglementary period but continues to collect his salaries upon
his certification that he has no pending matters to resolve transgresses the constitutional right of the
people to the speedy disposition of their cases.

MARCELINO A. MAGDARO, complainant, vs. JUDGE BIENVENIDO R. SANIEL, JR., Regional Trial
Court, Branch 20, Cebu City, respondent.
A.M. NO. RTJ-12-2331, DECEMBER 10, 2012
a. As a general principle, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or
certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless
delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.
b. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary.
Judges have the primary responsibility of maintaining the professional competence of their staff.
SECTION 21
Bautista vs. Cuneta-Pangilinan
G.R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012

Although the conclusion of the trial court may be wrong, to reverse and set aside the Order
granting the demurrer to evidence would violate petitioners constitutionally-enshrined right against double
jeopardy.