STAT CON
reports/resolutions must be reproduces in speech and the act of
Vera vs. Avelino (Aug 31 1946 Bengzon, J.)
Facts:
 PETS Jose Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose Romero were among
the 16 senatorial candidates who COMELE declared received the
highest votes during the 1946 elections.
 During the said national elections, COMELEC submitted to the
President and to Congress a report regarding certain acts of
terrorism and violence in the provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga,
Nueva Ecija, and Tarlac (“many residents of the four provinces
have voluntarily banished themselves from their home towns in
order not to be subjected to the prevailing oppression and to avoid
being victimized or losing their lives”, terrorism go worst after the
election, terrorism was in order to insure the election of the
candidates of the Conservative wing of the Nationalist Party)
 COMELEC reported that these acts of terrorism and violence made
the voting in these regions not reflect the true and free expression
of the popular will; the election returns from these provinces were
null and void because the great majority of voters were coerced or
intimidated and suffered from paralysis of judgment in voting.
 When Senate convened on May 1946, a resolution was approved
that the PETS shall not be sworn, not seated, as Senators
(deferred pending hearing and decision).
 PETS immediately filed an action to annul the resolution and to
compel the Senate to permit them to occupy their seats and to
exercise their senatorial prerogative.
 PETS also allege that the Senate does not have the jurisdiction to
prevent them from taking their seats and that it was the part of the
Electoral Tribunal.
ISSUE: W/N the resolution was valid.
HELD: DISMISSED.
 The judiciary cannot interfere with the functions of the Senate
because of the doctrine of separation of powers. The judiciary
cannot order the Senate to reinstate the PETS because it would
establish judicial predominance and upset the pattern of checks
and balance.
 According top Sec 15 Art VI of the Consti, “for any speech or
debate” in Congress, Senators and Congressmen “shall not be
questioned in any other place”. The SC of the US interpreted this
provision to include the giving of a vote or the presentation of a
resolution since it would be a narrow view to limit it to spoken
debate and that the reason for the rule is that written
voting. They decided that these privileges were for to support the
rights of the people by enabling their representatives to execute
their functions of office without fear of prosecution. The article
should be construed liberally, not strictly.
 Court stated that “having sworn to uphold the Constitution, we must
enforce the constitutional directive. We must not question, nor
permit respondents to be questioned here in connection with their
votes”.
De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council (Mar 27 2010 Bersamin, J.)
Facts
 CJ Reynato Puno’s compulsory retirement is just days after the
coming 2010 presidential elections
 Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII, that
“vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
thereof” from a “list of at least three nominees prepared by the
Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.”
 Sec 15 Art VII of Consti prohibits the President or Acting President
from making appointments within two months immediately before
the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when continued
vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety.
 The RES JBC agreed to start the process of filling up the CJ
position and “automatically considered” the 5 most senior of the
Associate Justices of the Court for CJ (Antonio Carpio, Conchita
Morales, Renato Corona, Presibetero Velasco, Antonio Nachura,
last two declined).
 The OSG contends that the incumbent President may appoint the
next CJ because Sec 15 Art VII does not apply to SC appointments
and that if the framers had intended it to apply to the SC that they
could have expressively stated so and explains why the provision
wasn’t found in Art VII (Judicial Dept.); also contends that the
Consti provided the Pres with limitations to appoint SC members to
insure its independence from political vicissitudes and political
pressures.
 PET Arturo De Castro (and 7 other cases) questions whether the
JBC properly initiated the process; some people believe that the
JBC can only do so once the vacany has occurred
ISSUE: W/N the incumbent President can appoint the next CJ.
HELD: YES.
 Sec 15 Art VII does not apply to SC appointments or to other
appointments in the judiciary.
 The two provisions are seemingly in conflict: (1) Sec 15 Art VII:
Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and
up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not
make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive
positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety. (2) Sec 4(1) Art VIII: The
Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division
of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within
ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
 Since the framers did not specifically extend the President’s
prohibition to the SC reveals that the prohibition does not refer to
members of SC.
 Secs. 14, 15, 16 of Art VII all refer the the President’s power to
appoint. The fact that Sec 14 and 16 only refer to appointments
within the Executive Department means that 15 also refers to the
Executive Department.
 Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the
context, every part must be considered together with the other
parts (interpret with regards to other provisions, as a whole).
5. SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS
a. Tanada vs. Angara (May 2 1997 Panganiban, J.)
Facts
 PET Sen. Wigberto Tanada with lawmakers, taxpayers, various
NGOs; they pray for the nullification of the PH ratification of the
World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.; Resolution 97 was
adopted by Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement
 The WTO opens access to foreign markets, thru the reduction of
tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial
products. Thus, new opportunities for the service sector, reduction
of costs and uncertainty with exporting, and the attraction of more
investments into the country.
 PETS contend that the WTO Agreement will be detrimental to the
growth of the National Economy and is against the “Filipino First”
policy (Art XII Sec 9 Consti) and that it is unconstitutional because
it is an assault on the sovereign powers of the PH because it
meant that Congress could not pass legislation that would be for
the good of national interest and general welfare if if did not
conform to the WTO Agreement.
 PET contends that WTO Agreement is against Sec 19 Art II
(development of self reliant and independent national
economy) and Secs 10&12, Art XII (“Filipino First”).
ISSUE: W/N the Resolution 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is
unconstitutional.
HELD: NO.
 The Consti does not prohibit the PH from participating in worldwide
trade liberalization and economic globalization; there are enough
balancing provisions in the Consti to allow the Senate to ratify the
WTO Agreement.
 Sec 19 Art II, a “declaration of principles and state policies” are not
intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement thru
the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aides or guides in the
exercise of its power of judicial review and by the legislature in its
enactment of laws.
 Filipino First: While the Consti has a bias in favor of Filipino
goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it
recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the
world on the bases of equality and reciprocity, and limits protection
of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade
practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not
intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
investments, goods and services in the development of the
Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the
unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the
country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an
exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on
foreign competition that is unfair.
 The above provisions are not self-executing and do not embody
judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for
legislation.
b. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (Feb 3 1997 Bellosillo, J.)
Facts:
 GSIS, pursuant to privatization program of PH government under
Proclamation #50, decided to sell thru public bidding 30-51% of the
shares of the Manila Hotel Corp.
 There were 2 bidders; the Manila Prince Hotel Copr. Which offered
to buy 51% of shares at 41.58php per share, and Malaysian firm
Renong Berhad which offered 44php per share.
 Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winner, PET
matched the bid at 44php per share but GSIS refused to accept the
bid.
 PETS contend that RES violated the Filipino First policy (Sec 10(2)
Art XII)
ISSUE: W/N Sec 10 Art XII of Consti is self-executing.
HELD: YES.
 SECTION 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the
economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates,
reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may
prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact
measures that will encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign
investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with
its national goals and priorities.
 A provision which lays down a general principle is usually not self-
executing. But, a provision which is complete in itself and becomes
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation,
or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it
grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
 A consti provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the
right and the liability are fixed by the constitution itself. Unless it is
expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a
provision in the consti, the presumption is all provision of the consti
are self-executing.
 Sec 10(2) Art XII of the consti is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws/rules for its enforcement.
c. Oposa vs. Factoran (Jul 30 1993 Davide, J.)
Facts
 The principal petitioners, 44 minors and duly represented by the
parents, alleged that the RES Fulgencio Factoran the Sec of DENR
continued approval of the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to
numerous commercial logging companies to cut and deforest the
remaining PH forests.
 PET requests RES and other persons acting in his behalf to (1)
cancel all existing TLAs in the country, (2) cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or approving new TLAs
 PET assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
continued deforestation are capable of unquestionable
demonstration and may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice.
 PET contends that RES violated Sec 16 Art II of the Consti which
recognizes the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology
 RTC dismissed the complaint, stating that PET failed to allege with
sufficient definiteness a legal right involved or a legal wrong
committed and that complaint was only vague assumptions and
conclusions without verified data.
ISSUE: W/N there is a legal wrong involved.
HELD: YES.
 The complaint focuses on the fundamental right to a balanced and
healthful ecology provided by Sec 16, Art II. This right unites with
the right in the preceding section Sec 15 which states that “The
State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people
and instill health consciousness among them.”
 These provisions are self-executing.
II. STARE DECISIS, RES JUDICATA, AND LAW OF THE CASE
 Stare Decisis - a judgment reached in one case should be applied
to successive ones in which the facts are substantially identical,
even though the parties may be different. Like cases ought to be
decided alike.
 Res Judicata - a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent
court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.
 Law of the Case - refers to instances where rulings made by a trial
court and not challenged on appeal become the law of the case.
 a term applied to an established rule that
when an appellate court passes on a
question and remands the cause to the lower
court for further proceedings, the question
there settled becomes the law of the case
upon subsequent appeal
a. Villena vs. Spouses Chavez (Nov 10 2003 Panganiban, J.)
Facts:
 RES filed an Illegal Detainer with Damages
 The RES Antonio & Noemi Chavez alleged that they owned 4
parcels of land and that these parcels of land have been
consolidated and subdivided into several blocks and lots and are
now collectively designated as Bagong Silang Phase III-C. PET
have occupies and erected homes on the lots by mere permission
and tolerance of the RES.
 RES allowed the members of the Bagong Silang Phase III-C
Homeowners Assoc. Inc. to occupy the lots ultimately to acquire
ownership in consideration of a certain amount to be paid the RES
as equity.
 Other members paid to RES equity, but PET have refused and
failed to pay their equity and have forfeited their right to continue
occupying the lots. Formal letters were set to PET, giving them 30
days to vacate and remove their houses from the lots. PET refused
and failed to do so.
 RES filed a Complaint to order PET to vacate the lot and pay RES
rent until PET have finally vacated; PET alleged that RES had no
action to institute the complaint because the lots were under the
community mortgage program implemented by the Nat’l Home
Mortgage Finance Corp. and that they have been paying equity to
the originator Urban Land Dev. Foundation but were not issued
receipts. PET also contend that they are beneficiaries of RA 7279
(Urban Dev. And Housing Act) and cannot be evicted from their
dwelling and their houses demolished until they have been
relocated.
ISSUE: W/N PET can continue occupying subject lots.
HELD: YES.
 There was an agreement between PET and RES for payment of
equity and was not merely based on the RES’ tolerance and
permission. PET were not necessarily bound by an implied promise
to vacate upon demand.
 PET argues that the main issue is not possession but
interpretation, enforcement and/or rescission of the contract, a
matter beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC.
 PET correctly pleaded that a similar case had already been
decided by the CA in which it ruled that the proper action should
have been a complaint for rescission or specific performance, not
for illegal detainer.
 When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to
all future cases with the same facts (stare decisis).
b. Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals (Aug 28 1996 Bellosillo, J.)
Facts:
 PET Nicolas Veloso, J. et, al. seek reversal of the decision of CA
dismissing their petition to annul judgment rendered by the RTC.
PET claim that the RTC decision was flawed because the issues
raised therein had already been resolved in an earlier case with the
same parties and subject matter and that the RTC had no power to
countermand a decision of a co-equal court.
 THE CASE: Respondents Avellana et, al. filed a complaint for
quieting the title with damages against PET before the RTC. The
RTC rendered judgment finding the subject title was authentic and
valid, declared the respondents co-owners, directed the PET to
deliver to respondents the physical and material possession with all
improvements thereon, and ordered PET to pay respondents’ atty.
fees and litigation expenses. PET elevated the case to the CA,
wherein the RTC decision was affirmed.
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in not reversing the decision of the RTC, in
violation of the doctrine of res judicdata and the law of the case.
HELD: NO.
 PET rely on the decision of Civil Case #R-205 which already
became final and executory for lack of appeal by any of the parties,
and on Civil Case #B-122 which was affirmed by the CA. PET
alleged that those decisions upheld their possession and
ownership of the lot. PET claim that RTC had no jurisdicrion to
amend, alter, or modify those decisions.
 Under the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment, the PET
are seeking a second cycle of review regarding a subject matter
which has already been fully and fairly adjudicated and that cannot
be allowed because the facts and questions in the earlier cases
have become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a
subsequent action.
 It is immaterial that the two actions are based on different grounds
or tried on different theories or have different purposes and seek
different reliefs. Whatever is once irrevocably established as the
controlling legal principle or decision continues to be the law of the
case between the same parties in the same case so long as the
facts on which such decision are the same.
c. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals (Apr 18 1997 Francisco, J.)
Facts:
 The dispute stemmed from an unpaid promissory note executed by
PET Leovillo Agustin to ERM Commercial and was payable thru
 monthly installments and secured by an Isuzu diesel truck, both of
which were assigned to private respondent Filinvest Finance Cop.
 When PET failed to pay the installments, private respondent
demanded him to pay the entire balance or surrender the
possession of the mortgaged truck. PET refused. P. Respondent
filed a complaint with the RTC against PET, praying for a writ of
replevin which was subsequently approved.
 P. RES got the vehicle but found it to not be in running condition
and that several parts were missing (which P. RES replaced). The
truck was sold at public auction.
 P. RES filed a supplemental complaint to claim for the
reimbursement of the replacement parts and for transporting
expenses of the vehicle. RTC granted the motion. PET elevated
the matter to the CA.
 PET contends that the award of repossession expenses to P. RES.
Is contrary to Art 1484 of the Civil Code and that the expenses
have been covered by the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and
he could no longer be held liable.
ISSUE: W/N the PET is still liable to pay for the repossession
expenses.
HELD: YES.
 Ruling of the CA affirming the RTC decision has long acquired
finality. CA had already settled the propriety of awarding
repossession expenses to P. RES and has become the law of the
case.
 Even if the law of the case doctrine is set aside, the award for
repossession is still proper. In Filipinas Investment & Finance Corp.
vs. Ridad, the Court recognized an exception to the rule states
under Art 1484(3) upon which PET relies (when PET refused to
deliver the truck, he is liable to pay the fees of repossession).
d. De Mesa vs. Pepsi Cola Products PH (Aug 19 2005
Quisumbing, J.)
Facts:
 PET Amelia De Mesa et, al. are holders of soft drink bottle caps
bearing the number “349”, allegedly a winning combination in a
contest sponsored by RES.
 D.G. Consultores, a Mexican consulting firm, was tasked to
randomly pre-select the winning numbers and sent to RES a list of
6 winners with approval of the DTI. To ensure that the winning
numbers will not be tampered, the DTI required RES to submit the
list of the winning numbers including their security code.
 RES extended the promo by 5 more weeks and tasked D.G.
Consultores to predetermine 25 additional winners from the unused
numbers.
 “349” was announced as the winning number for the May 26 draw.
Later the same night, RES’ Marketing Services Manager called DTI
to inform them that due to some security code problems, a mistake
had been made in the announcement of “349” as the winning
number. Holders of the “349” bottlecaps were not honored and paid
by RES which led them to file separate complaints.
 Plaintiffs of the complaints withdrew and left Gerson Mendoza as
the sole plaintiff. The other plaintiffs refiled their complaints entitled
Rodrigo v. Pepsi. In the Mendoza case, RTC dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. The Rodrigo case was also dismissed.
 However, prior to the resolution of the Mendoza and Rodrigo
cases, PET filed with RTC a motion to adopt the previous
testimonial and evidence in Mendoza and Rodrigo or archive the
case until final resolution of the two cases.
 RES filed with RTC a motion to dismiss the complaints of PET on
the ground of stare decisis.
 PET comes to SC for review contending that res judicata does not
apply and the dismissal of the complaint was premature as PET
motion to archive was based on the decision in Mendoza and
Rodrigo.
ISSUE: W/N the present case is barred by the ruling in Mendoza and
Rodrigo.
HELD: YES.
 PET contend that res judicata does not apply because there is no
identity of parties; that stare decisis does not apply because it is
not a hard and fast rule.
 Stare decisis in enshrined in Art 8 of the Civil Code. The facts in
the current case are exactly the same as in Mendoza and Rodrigo.
The Court’s hands are now tied by the finality of the said
judgments.
III. RATIO DECIDENDI and OBITER DICTUM
 Ratio Decidendi – the point of the case that determines the
judgement; the rationale for the decision; binding in nature
 Obiter Dictum – a remark in a judgment that is said in passing and
is only persuasive in nature
a. Mercado vs. People (Nov 26 2002 Bellosillo, J.)
FACTS:
 PET Marvin Mercado, along with others, was charged and
convicted with violating RA 6538 (Anti-Carnapping Act)
 PET prays the Court to review his conviction and argues that the
CA, having increased the penalty imposed by the court from 12 yrs
to 17 yrs TO 30 yrs, should have certified the case to this Court as
the penalty of 30 yrs was already reclusion perpetua accdg to the
Rules of Criminal Procedure
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in increasing PET’s penalty.
HELD: NO.
 CA correctly held that Sec 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure that PET relied on was applicable only when the penalty
imposed was reclusion perpetua or higher. The penalty imposed by
CA was in accordance to the Anti-Carnapping Act and is not
considered reclusion perpetua.
 CA relied on People vs. Omotoy, where RTC sentenced arsonist to
12 yrs TO 30 yrs
 Art 27 of RPC states that reclusion perpetua is 20 yrs 1 day TO 40
yrs. While the 30 yr period fall within that range, reclusion perpetua
is a single indivisible penalty and cannot be divided into different
periods.
 The crim of PET was penalized by a special law and not under the
RPC. If the special law imposes such penalty, it is erroneous to
designate it in provisions of RPC. Special laws provide for their
own specific penalties.
 The ratio of Omotoy may not have been the ratio decidendi of the
case, but it still constitutes an important part of the decision
because it provides a fundamental procedural rule in the conduct of
appeals.
b. Francisco Villanueva, Jr. vs. CA and Roque Villadores (Mar 19
2002 De Leon, Jr., J.)*
FACTS:
 RES Villadores was one of the accused in the criminal case People
v. Atty. Tomas Bernardo, Roque Villadores, et, al. for falsification
of public document
 PET Villanueva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
IBC13. The labor arbiter rule in favor of PET and IBC13 appealed
to the Nat’l Labor Relations Commission. IBC filed a surety bond
issued by BF Gen. Insurance Comp. with a confirmation letter
supposedly issued by BF’s VP. Both documents were revealed to
be falsified and 2 complaints were filed by IBC against Villadores
which were dismissed. However, probable cause was found
against other respondents. DOJ included Villadores as accused in
the 2 criminal cases.
 Following the arraignment of Villadores, PET filed for damages as
a result of the crimes committed by P. RES.
 RES contends PET Villanueva is not the offended party in the
cases, it was IBC13. PET opposed saying that the pronouncement
is only an obiter dictum. CA ruled in favor of RES.
ISSUE: W/N CA decision was an obiter dictum.
HELD: NO.
 The CA decision touched upon a matter clearly raised by
respondent in his petition (whether petitioner was an offended
party). An obiter dictum is an opinion expressed by a court upon
some question of law which is not necessary to the decision of the
case before it. It is incidental, and not directly upon the question
before him. Such are not binding as precedent. The body of the
decision contains discussion on that point and it clearly mentioned
certain principles of law. Adjudication on any point within the issues
presented by the case cannot be considered as obiter dictum , and
this rule applies to all pertinent questions, although only incidentally
involved, which are presented and decided in the regular course of
the consideration of the case, and led up to the final conclusion,
and to any statement as to matter on which the decision is
predicated.
 So, also, where a case presents two (2) or more points, any one
of which is sufficient to determine the ultimate issue, but the court
actually decides all such points, the case as an authoritative
precedent as to every point decided, and none of such points can
be regarded as having the status of a dictum, and one point should
not be denied authority merely because another point was more
dwelt on and more fully argued and considered, nor does a
decision on one proposition make statements of the court
regarding other propositions dicta.