Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Niceforo Solis) 91
1ST EXAM COVERAGE CASE COMPILATION
ANGARA v. ELECTORAL COMMISSION
63 Phil. 139 (1936)
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45081
RESOLUCION
CONFIRMANDO
LAS
ACTAS DE AQUELLOS DIPUTADOS
CONTRA QUIENES
NO
SE
HA
PRESENTADO PROTESTA.
Se resuelve: Que las actas de eleccion de
los Diputados contra quienes no se
hubiere presentado debidamente una
protesta antes de la adopcion de la
presente resolucion sean, como por la
presente, son aprobadas y confirmadas.
Adoptada, 3 de diciembre, 1935.
(5) That on December 8, 1935, the herein
respondent Pedro Ynsua filed before the Electoral
Commission a "Motion of Protest" against the
election of the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara,
being the only protest filed after the passage of
Resolutions No. 8 aforequoted, and praying, among
other-things, that said respondent be declared
elected member of the National Assembly for the
first district of Tayabas, or that the election of said
position be nullified;
(6) That on December 9, 1935, the Electoral
Commission adopted a resolution, paragraph 6 of
which provides:
6. La Comision no considerara ninguna
protesta que no se haya presentado en o
antes de este dia.
(7) That on December 20, 1935, the herein
petitioner, Jose A. Angara, one of the respondents
in the aforesaid protest, filed before the Electoral
Commission a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest",
alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of Dismiss the
Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of the
National Assembly was adopted in the legitimate
exercise of its constitutional prerogative to prescribe
the period during which protests against the
election of its members should be presented; (b)
that the aforesaid resolution has for its object, and
is the accepted formula for, the limitation of said
period; and (c) that the protest in question was filed
out of the prescribed period;
(8) That on December 27, 1935, the herein
respondent, Pedro Ynsua, filed an "Answer to the
Motion of Dismissal" alleging that there is no legal
or constitutional provision barring the presentation
of a protest against the election of a member of the
National Assembly after confirmation;
(9) That on December 31, 1935, the herein
petitioner, Jose A. Angara, filed a "Reply" to the
aforesaid "Answer to the Motion of Dismissal";
question of jurisdiction
consideration.
squarely
presented
to
our
But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft
strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive,
the legislative and the judicial departments of the
government. The overlapping and interlacing of functions
and duties between the several departments, however,
sometimes makes it hard to say just where the one leaves off
and the other begins. In times of social disquietude or
political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution
are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In
cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only
constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine
the proper allocation of powers between the several
departments and among the integral or constituent units
thereof.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
the phrase "judge of" and the words "the elections", which
was accordingly accepted by the Convention.
The transfer of the power of determining the election, returns
and qualifications of the members of the legislature long
lodged in the legislative body, to an independent, impartial
and non-partisan tribunal, is by no means a mere experiment
in the science of government.
xxx
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR.,
Petitioner,
- versusREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
For consideration is the Urgent Motion to Approve
the Conversion of the SMC Common Shares into SMC
Series 1 Preferred Shares dated July 24, 2009 (Motion)
interposed by petitioners Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation, Inc., et al. (collectively, COCOFED). COCOFED
seeks the Courts approval of the conversion of 753,848,312
Class A and Class B common shares of San Miguel
Corporation (SMC) registered in the names of Coconut
Industry Investment Fund and the so-called 14 Holding
Companies (collectively known as CIIF companies) into
753,848,312 SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares (hereinafter,
the Conversion).
SMCs conversion or stock exchange offer is
embodied in its Information Statement[1] and yields the
following relevant features:
Instrument
Peso
denominated,
perpetual,
cumulative, non-voting
preferred shares with a
par value of Php 5.00
per share and Issue
Price of Php 75 per
share.
Dividend Rate - The SMC Board of
Directors shall have the
sole discretion to declare
dividends on the Series
1 Preferred Shares as
redeemed
by SMC,
the dividend rate shall
be at a fixed rate of 8%
per
annum, payable
quarterly and calculated
by reference to the
issue price.
Dividend Rate Step Up - Unless the Series
1 Preferred Shares are
redeemed
by SMC,
the Dividend Rate shall
be adjusted at the end
of the fifth year to the
higher
of
(a)
the
Dividend Rate or (b) the
case
of
merger
or
to
be
of
of
and
receivershipare
provisional,
temporary,
designed
for
particular
exigencies, attended by no character of
permanency or finality, and always
subject to the control of the issuing
court or agency. (Emphasis supplied.)
This is incorrect.
The Court, to be sure, has not barred the conversion
of any sequestered common shares of a corporation into
preferred shares. It may be argued that the conversion
scheme under consideration may later on be treated as an
indirect sale of the common shares from the registered
owner to another person if and when SMC decides to
redeem the Series 1 preferred shares on the third
anniversary from the issue date of the preferred shares. Still,
given the circumstances of the pending incident, the Court
can validly allow the proposed conversion in accordance with
Rule 57, Sec. 11, in relation to Rule 59, Sec. 6 of the Rules
of Court. Sec. 11 reads:
SEC. 11. When attached property
may be sold after levy on attachment and
before entry of judgment.Whenever it
shall be made to appear to the court in
which the action is pending, upon hearing
with notice to both parties, that the
property attached is perishable, or that the
interests of all the parties to the action
will be subserved by the sale thereof,
the court may order such property to be
sold at public auction in such manner
as it may direct, and the proceeds of
such sale to be deposited in court to
abide the judgment in the action.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Republic
v.
sequestration is akin
receivership, thus:
Sandiganbayan[24] teaches
that
to preliminary attachment or
xxxx
198
is
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
This appeal assails the adverse decision of the Court of
Appeals
(CA)1 that
dismissed
the
petition
for certiorari brought by the petitioner to nullify and set aside
the resolutions issued by the Secretary of Justice on July 20,
20042 and November 18, 20053 directing the City Prosecutor
of Malabon City to withdraw the information in Criminal Case
No. 27020 entitledPeople v. Antonino O. Tobias III.
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
Antecedents
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO.
(METROBANK), represented by ROSELLA A.
SANTIAGO,
Petitioner,
-versus-
xxx
That on or about the 15th day of August, 1997 in the
Municipality of Malabon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, by means of deceit, false
pretense, fraudulent acts and misrepresentation
executed prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of fraud, represented to METROBANK,
as represented by MS. ROSELLA S. SANTIAGO,
that he is the registered owner of a parcel of land
covered by TCT No. M-16751 which he represented
to be true and genuine when he knew the
Certificate of Title No. M-16751 is fake and spurious
and executed a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of
Metrobank and offered the same as collateral for a
loan and Rosella S. Santiago relying on said
misrepresentation gave to accused, the amount
CONTRARY TO LAW.15
In his counter-affidavit submitted during the reinvestigation,17 Tobias averred that he had bought the
property from one Leonardo Fajardo through real estate
brokers Augusto Munsuyac and Carmelito Pilapil; that
Natalio Bartolome, his financial consultant from Carwin
International, had convinced him to purchase the property
due to its being an ideal site for his meat processing plant
and cold storage business; that the actual inspection of the
property as well as the verification made in the Registry of
Deeds of Malabon City had ascertained the veracity of TCT
No. 106083 under the name of Leonardo Fajardo; that he
had applied for the loan from METROBANK to pay the
purchase price by offering the property as collateral; that in
order for the final application to be processed and the loan
proceeds to be released, METROBANK had advised him to
have the title first transferred to his name; that he had
executed a deed of absolute sale with Fajardo covering the
property, and that said instrument had been properly
registered in the Registry of Deeds; that the transfer of the
title, being under the account of the seller, had been
processed by seller Fajardo and his brokers Munsuyac and
Pilapil; that his title and the property had been inspected and
verified by METROBANKs personnel; and that he did not
have any intention to defraud METROBANK.
WHEREFORE,
the
assailed
resolution is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The City Prosecutor of Malabon
City is directed to cause the withdrawal of
the Information in Crim. Case No. 27020
against respondent Antonino O. Tobias III,
and report the action taken thereon within
ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Ruling of the CA
Issue
In this appeal, METROBANK raises the lone issue of
On the other hand, Tobias posits that the core function of the
Department of Justice is to prosecute the guilty in criminal
cases, not to persecute; that although the prosecutors are
given latitude to determine the existence of probable cause,
the review power of the Secretary of Justice prevents
overzealous prosecutors from persecuting the innocent; that
in reversing the resolution of Malabon City Assistant
Prosecutor Ojer Pacis, the Secretary of Justice only acted
within his authority; that, indeed, the Secretary of Justice
Ruling
DECISION
SO ORDERED.
CSC v. RAMONEDA-PITA
696 S 155 (2013)
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
EN BANC
A.M. No. P-08-2531
April 11, 2013
(Formerly A.M. No. 08-7-220-MTCC)
PER CURIAM:
This administrative case arose from a letter 1dated June 23,
2006 by Director David E. Cabanag, Jr. of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. VII calling the
attention of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to the
continued employment of Merle Ramoneda-Pita (RamonedaPita) as Clerk III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Danao City. It informed the OCA that in CSC
Resolution No. 0102632 dated January 26, 2001,
Ramoneda-Pita was found guilty of dishonesty and
dismissed from the service. As accessory penalties, she was
perpetually barred from joining government service and her
civil service eligibility was revoked. However, Ramoneda-Pita
did not declare her ineligibility when she stated in her
Personnel Data Sheet (PDS)3 dated June 14, 2005 that she
had never been involved in any administrative case and that
she was civil service eligible.
The antecedent facts follow.
On March 23, 1998, an anonymous letter 4 informed the CSC
of an alleged irregularity in the civil service eligibility of
Ramoneda-Pita. The letter stated that the irregularity
concerned Ramoneda-Pitas taking of the Career Service
Sub-Professional Examination held in Cebu City on July 26,
1987.
The CSC retrieved the records for the July 26, 1987
examinations and compared the pictures and signatures of
Ramoneda-Pita as they appeared in the Picture Seat Plan
(PSP) for the exam and her PDS dated October 17, 1990. As
the pictures and signatures did not match, the CSC required
Ramoneda-Pita to explain why it seemed that another
person took the civil service examination on her behalf.
Ramoneda-Pita denied that someone else took the civil
service examinations in her stead. She averred that she took
the civil service examinations on July 30, 1986 and not July
26, 1987. She explained that there were dissimilarities in the
pictures in the PSP and the PDS because these were not
taken on the same year and might have deteriorated in
quality over the years. On the other hand, she accounted for
the difference in her signatures to her low educational
attainment leading to her non-development and nonmaintenance of a usual signature.5
In its Investigation Report6 dated May 3, 1999, the CSC
made the following observations and recommendation:
The person who actually took the Career Service
Subprofessional Examination on July 26, 1987 in Cebu City,
was the "Merle C. Ramoneda" whose picture and signature
Civil
Service
GARCIA v. DRILON
699 S 352 (2013)
EN BANC
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
JESUS C. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE RAY
ALAN T. DRILON, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
respondent's
claims
of
the
RTC
of
Bacolod
City
Not
to
dissipate
the
conjugal
business.
Prohibited
from
harassing,
annoying,
telephoning,
before
the
CA
The Issues
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
PETITION ON THE THEORY THAT THE ISSUE OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS NOT RAISED AT THE
EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND THAT, THE PETITION
CONSTITUTES A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE
VALIDITY OF THE LAW.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS
ERROR IN FAILING TO CONCLUDE THAT R.A. 9262 IS
DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE MISTAKE
IN NOT FINDING THAT R.A. 9262 RUNS COUNTER TO
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
THE LAW DOES VIOLENCE TO THE POLICY OF THE
STATE TO PROTECT THE FAMILY AS A BASIC SOCIAL
INSTITUTION.
V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT
DECLARING R.A. No. 9262 AS INVALID AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT ALLOWS AN UNDUE
DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER TO THE BARANGAY
OFFICIALS.38nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary
The Ruling of the Court
Before delving into the arguments propounded by petitioner
against the constitutionality of R.A. 9262, we shall first tackle
the propriety of the dismissal by the appellate court of the
petition for prohibition (CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 01698) filed by
petitioner.
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the
pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if
not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on
appeal.39 Courts will not anticipate a question of
constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.40
In defending his failure to attack the constitutionality of R.A.
9262 before the RTC of Bacolod City, petitioner argues that
the Family Court has limited authority and jurisdiction that is
inadequate to tackle the complex issue of constitutionality. 41
We
disagree.
jurisdiction
a statute.
enjoined.
issues to
be
of
Congress
in
enacting
R.A.
9262.
December
10,
2003
Wednesday,
January
x
The
x
14,
x
President
x
2004
x
Pro
Tempore.
x
x
Also, may the Chair remind the group that there was the
discussion whether to limit this to women and not to families
which was the issue of the AWIR group. The understanding
that I have is that we would be having a broader scope
rather than just women, if I remember correctly, Madam
sponsor.
Senator
Estrada.
Yes,
Mr.
President.
Sotto.
Mr.
President.
President
Pro
Tempore.
Yes,
please
proceed.
if
may
President
Pro
propose
an
Tempore.
To
amendment
the
amendment.
Senator Sotto. more than the women, the children are very
much abused. As a matter of fact, it is not limited to minors.
The abuse is not limited to seven, six, 5-year-old children. I
have seen 14, 15-year-old children being abused by their
fathers, even by their mothers. And it breaks my heart to find
out
about
these
things.
Because of the inadequate existing law on abuse of children,
this particular measure will update that. It will enhance and
hopefully prevent the abuse of children and not only women.
does
of
the
not
equal
violate
the
protection
laws.
SOTTO-LEGARDA AMENDMENTS
Therefore, may I propose an amendment that, yes, we
remove the aspect of the men in the bill but not the children.
Senator Legarda. I agree, Mr. President, with the Minority
Leader.
The President Pro Tempore. Effectively then, it will be
women
AND
CHILDREN.
Senator
Senator
Sotto.
Estrada.
Yes,
It
is
Mr.
accepted,
President.
Mr.
President.
R.A.
9262
rests
on
substantial
distinctions.
under
his
control.
I
studies:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
quote
the
early
are
the
usual
of
and
most likely
violence.
200
4
997
38
200
5
927
46
200
6
659
26
200
7
837
22
200
8
811
28
201
625
2,38
7
182
30
109
3,59
9
220
19
109
5,28
5
208
19
99
9,974 9,021
374
25
158
213
15
128
17
29
11
16
16
34
24
23
34
28
152 190
18 25
62
22
90
50
59
59
83
703 183
155
Gender
bias
and
prejudices
the
dimensions
and
of
the
due
Constitution.
service
on
respondent.104
the
is
no
undue
delegation
to
barangay
of
judicial
officials.