Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
infringes
property
rights.
1. Definition
2. Elements
Person
CASE: Villegas v. Hiu Chong, 86 SCRA 270-Emelie
Diez
(l) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the following:
xxxx
xxxxxlaundries
xxxx.
(ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the
sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and the
promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience,
and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.
The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. 532 was to
avoid disputes between laundrymen and their patrons and to protect
customers of laundries who are not able to decipher Chinese
characters from being defrauded. (Considering that in the year 1920s,
people of Manila are more familiar with Spanish and maybe English.)
In whether the ordinance is class legislation, the court held that the
ordinance invades no fundamental right, and impairs no personal
privilege. Under the guise of police regulation, an attempt is not made
to violate personal property rights. The ordinance is neither
discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation. It applies to all public
laundries without distinction, whether they belong to Americans,
Filipinos, Chinese, or any other nationality. All, without exception, and
each every one of them without distinction, must comply with the
ordinance. The obvious objection for the implementation of the
ordinance is based in sec2444 (ee) of the Administrative Code.
Although, an additional burden will be imposed on the business and
occupation affected by the ordinance such as that of the appellant by
learning even a few words in Spanish or English, but mostly Arabic
numbers in order to properly issue a receipt, it seems that the same
burdens are cast upon the them. Yet, even if private rights of person or
property are subjected to restraint, and even if loss will result to
individuals from the enforcement of the ordinance, this is not sufficient
ground for failing to uphold the power of the legislative body. The very
foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the
public
welfare.
Deprivation
Life
Liberty
Property
3. Aspects
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no, 532 is an act
beyond
the
scope
of
police
power
(2) Whether or Not the enforcement of the same is a class legislation
more than 10K or imprisonment for not more than 2 years will be
imposed
fiscal measure intended to facilitate the work of the government
agents and to prevent fraud in the returns of merchants, in conformity
with the sales tax and the income tax
On March 1923, BIR inspected the books of account of Yu Cong Eng
where it was found out that it is not in accordance with Act 2972
A criminal case was filed against Yu Cong Eng before the CFI Manila
for keeping his books of account in Chinese
Yus defense:
Yu Cong Eng et al are Chinese merchants, claiming that they
represent the other 12K filed a petition for prohibition and injunction
against the CIR, questioning the constitutionality of Act No. 2972 or the
Chinese Bookkeeping Law
Issue: W/N Act No. 2972 is constitutional?
Ruling:
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised in
the lower court and that court must be given an opportunity to pass
upon the question before it may be presented to the appellate court for
resolution
Power of taxation
strongest of all the powers of government, practically absolute and
unlimited
It is a legislative power. All its incidents are within the control of the
legislature. It is the Legislature which must questions of state
necessarily involved in ordering a tax, which must make all the
necessary rules and regulations which are to be observed in order to
produce the desired results, and which must decide upon the agencies
by means of which collections shall be made
The power to tax is not judicial power and that a strong case is
required for the judiciary to declare a law relating to taxation invalid. If,
of course, so great an abuse is manifest as to destroy natural and
fundamental rights, it is the duty of the judiciary to hold such an Act
unconstitutional
The Chinese petitioners are accorded treaty rights of the most
favored nation
Their constitutional rights are those accorded all aliens, which means
that the life, liberty, or property of these persons cannot be taken
without due process of law, and that they are entitled to the equal
protection of the laws, without regard to their race
Act No. 2972 is a fiscal measure which seeks to prohibit not only the
Chinese but all merchants of whatever nationality from making entries
in the books of account or forms subject to inspection for taxation
purposes in any other language than either the English or Spanish
language or a local dialect
the law only intended to require the keeping of such books as were
necessary in order to facilitate governmental inspection for tax
purposes
The Chinese will not be singled out as a special subject for
discriminating and hostile legislation since there are other aliens doing
business in the Phils. There will be no arbitrary deprivation of liberty or
arbitrary spoliation of property. There will be no unjust and illegal
discrimination between persons in similar circumstances. The law will
prove oppressive to the extent that all tax laws are oppressive, but not
oppressive to the extent of confiscation
Act No. 2972 as meaning that any person, company, partnership, or
corporation, engaged in commerce, industry, or any other activity for
the purpose of profit in the Philippine Islands, shall keep its account
books, consisting of sales books and other records and returns
required for taxation purposes by regulations of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, in effect when this action was begun, in English, Spanish, or
a local dialect, thus valid and constitutional
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155- Caincay
Ichong vs Hernandez
FACTS:
The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail
Business). Its purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of
the Phil. from having a stranglehold upon the peoples economic life.
a prohibition against aliens and against associations, partnerships, or
corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by Filipinos,
from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade
aliens actually engaged in the retail business on May 15, 1954 are
allowed to continue their business, unless their licenses are forfeited in
accordance with law, until their death or voluntary retirement. In case
of juridical persons, ten years after the approval of the Act or until the
expiration of term.
Citizens and juridical entities of the United States were exempted from
this Act.
provision for the forfeiture of licenses to engage in the retail business
for violation of the laws on nationalization, economic control weights
and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade, commerce
and industry.
provision against the establishment or opening by aliens actually
engaged in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail
business
Lao Ichong, in his own behalf and behalf of other alien residents,
corporations and partnerships affected by the Act, filed an action to
declare it unconstitutional for the ff: reasons:
Facts:
Leonides Basconsillo, private respondent, filed a complaint with the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration IPOEA) for illegal
dismissal against Vinta Maritime Co. Inc. and Elkano Ship
Management, Inc. petitioners alleged that Leonides was dismissed for
his gross negligence and incompetent performance as chief engineer
of
the
M/V
Boracay.
The POEA ruled that private respondent was illegally dismissed. On
appeal, the NLRC affirmed the POEA. Likewise, the NLRC denied the
motion
for
reconsideration.
Hence,
this
petition.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
private
respondent
is
illegally
dismissed.
Held:
The absence of a valid cause for termination in this case is apparent.
For an employees dismissal to be valid, (1) the dismissal must be for a
valid cause and (2) the employee must be afforded due process.
Petitioners allege that private respondent was dismissed because of
his incompetence, enumerating incidents in proof thereof. However,
this is contradicted by private respondents seamans book which
states that his discharge was due to an emergency leave. Moreover,
his alleged incompetence is belied by the remarks made by petitioners
in the same book that private respondents services were highly
recommended and that his conduct and ability were rated very good
. Petitioners allegation that such remark and ratings were given to
private respondent as an accommodation for future employment fails
to persuade. The Court cannot consent to such an accommodation,
even if the allegation were true, as it is a blatant misrepresentation. It
cannot exculpate petitioners based on such misrepresentation. When
petitioners issued the accommodation, they must have known its
possible
repercussions.
Due process, the second element for a valid dismissal, requires notice
and hearing. Before the employee can be dismissed under Art. 282,
the Code requires the service of a written notice containing a
statement of the cause/s of termination and giving said employee
Facts:
Petitioner transported 6 caracbaos from Masbate to Iloilo in 1984 and
these wer confiscated by the station commander in Barotac, Iloilo for
violating E.O. 626 A which prohibits transportation of a carabao or
carabeef from one province to another. Confiscation will be a result of
this.
The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo
City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of
P12,000.00. After considering the merits of the case, the court
sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no
longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court
also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as
raise by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed
validity.
The same result was decided in the trial court.
In the Supreme Court, he then petitioned against the constitutionality of
the E.O. due to the outright confiscation without giving the owner the
right to heard before an impartial court as guaranteed by due process.
He also challenged the improper exercise of legislative power by the
former president under Amendment 6 of the 1973 constitution wherein
Marcos was given emergency powers to issue letters of instruction that
had the force of law.
Issue: Is the E.O. constitutional?
Holding: The EO is unconstitutional. Petition granted.
Ratio:
The lower courts are not prevented from examining the constitutionality
of a law.
Constitutional grant to the supreme court to review.
Justice Laurel's said, courts should not follow the path of least
resistance by simply presuming the constitutionality of a law when it is
questioned. On the contrary, they should probe the issue more deeply,
to relieve the abscess, and so heal the wound or excise the affliction.
The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is
really presidential decree, promulgating a new rule instead of merely
implementing an existing law due to the grant of legislative authority
over the president underAmendment number 6.
Provisions of the constitution should be cast in precise language to
avoid controvery. In the due process clause, however, the wording was
ambiguous so it would remain resilient. This was due to the avoidance
of an iron rule laying down a stiff command for all circumstances.
There was flexibility to allow it to adapt to every situation with varying
degrees at protection for the changing conditions.
Courts have also refrained to adopt a standard definition for due
processlest they be confined to its interpretation like a straitjacket.
There must be requirements of notice and hearing as a safeguard
against arbitrariness.
There are exceptions such as conclusive presumption which bars
omission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based
on human experience or rational connection between facts proved and
fact presumed. An examplesis a passport of a person with a criminal
offense cancelled without hearing.
The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of police
power which both restrains and is restrained by dure process. This
power was invoked in 626-A, in addition to 626 which prohibits
slaughter of carabos with an exception.
While 626-A has the same lawful subjectas the original executive
order, it cant be said that it complies with the existence of a
lawful method. The transport prohibition and the purpose sought has a
gap.
Summary action may be taken in valid admin proceedings as
procedural due process is not juridical only due to the urgency needed
to correct it.
There was no reason why the offense in the E.O. would not have been
proved in a court of justice with the accused acquired the rights in the
constitution.
Ruling: Yes, Judge Azura should inhibit himself from the trial. As
decided in Pimentel vs. Salanga, all the foregoing notwithstanding,
this should be a good occasion as any to draw attention of all judges to
appropriate guidelines in a situation where their capacity to try and
decide fairly and judiciously comes to the fore by way of challenge
from any one of the parties. A judge may not be legally prohibited from
sitting in a litigation; but when suggestion is made of record that he
might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice
against a litigant arising out of circumstances reasonably capable of
inciting such a state of mind, he should conduct a careful selfexamination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the
people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. In this case,
Judge Azura failed to maintain his position in such a manner that will
beget no suspicion of his fairness and integrity because of the
antagonistic positions taken by the parties in their respective
pleadings, and, particularly, the seriousness of the imputations made
by petitioner, which prompted him and others to file administrative
charges against respondent Judge. Hence, Judge Azura is hereby
ordered to inhibit himself from hearing the cases and the cases are
hereby transferred to the different Regional Trial Courts of Cagayan de
Oro.
o Jurisdiction
1. how acquire
a. in actions in personam
b. in actions in rem or quasi in rem
o Notice and Hearing
CASES:
David v. Aquilizan, 94 SCRA 707-Aleria
David has a large parcel of land in Polomolok, Cotabato. He let
Felomeno Jugar and Ricardo Jugar tend and caretake separate
portions of his land in 1971. The land is estimated to be yielding 60-70
cavans of corn cobs an dthe share agreed upon is 50-50. In 1973,
David withdrew the land from the brothers and has not allowed them to
go back there. The brothers prayed for reinstatement but David
refused to do so. David denied that the borthers were his tenants. He
said that Ricardo was his tractor driver before but he resigned to take
care of his dad and to work for DOLE. Fewlomeno on the other hand
surrendered the portion of the land he was tending to continue his faith
healing. J Aquilizan handled the case filed by the brothers against
David and after three months he rendered a decision in favor of the
brothers without any hearing. David averred he was denied due
process. J Aquilizan admitted that there was indeed no hearing
conducted but he said the decision has already become final and
executory as the period for appeal has already lapsed.
natural persons
Requirements
CASES:
Victoriano v. Elizalde, G.R. No. L-25246 Sept 12,
1974- Durana
Biraogo v. Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935,
December 7, 2010, particularly the concurrence of CJ
Corona and dissent of J. Sereno - Mahinay
Substantial Distinctions
CASES:
Ichong v. Hernandez, supra (Milan)
Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (Read also
the dissent of J. Teehankee) - Escobia
Ceniza v. COMELEC, 96 SCRA 763 - Esolana
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (Read
also the dissent of J. Makasiar) - Estimo
PASE v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 - Faller
Intl. School Alliance of Educators v.
Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13 - Friolo
DECS v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533 - Tejas
Phil Judges Assn. v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703Ceniza
Tatad v. Secretary, GR No. 124360, November
5, 1997- Oclinara
Duration
CASES:
Pp. v. Cayat, supra- (Sulitas)
Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc
City, 22 SCRA 603-Gresunes
Tatad v. Secretary, supra- (Gador)
Applicability to All
CASES:
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, supra- (Tudtud)
Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, supra- (Verallo)