Roco vs Hon.

Contreras

Facts:

Petitioner Domingo Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling dressed chicken. Sometime
in 1993, he purchased his supply of dressed chicken from private respondent Cals Poultry Supply
Corporation. As payment for his purchases, petitioner drew five (5) checks payable to Cals Corporation.
Cals Corporation deposited the checks in its account but the bank dishonored them for having been
drawn against a closed account. Thereafter, Cals Corporation filed criminal complaints against petitioner
for violation of Batas Pambasa Blg. 22 (BP 22), otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

Thereafter, petitioner filed with the MTCC a Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and
Subpoena Duces Tecum, requiring Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap, both of Cals Corporation or their duly
authorized representatives, to appear and testify in court and to bring with them certain documents,
records and books of accounts for the years 1993-1999.

The then presiding Acting Judge Geomer C. Delfin, issued an order granting petitioners
aforementioned request and accordingly directed the issuance of the desired subpoenas.
During the trial, the private prosecutor manifested that it was improper for the trial court to have
directed the issuance of the requested subpoenas, to which the petitioner countered by saying that
Judge Delfins order had become final and hence, immutable. The corporation maintained that the
production of the documents was inappropriate because they are immaterial and irrelevant to the
crimes for which the petitioner was being prosecuted.
Thereafter, the MTCC, this time thru its regular Presiding Judge, Judge Edward B. Contreras, denied
petitioners request on the following grounds: (a) the requested documents, book ledgers and other
records were immaterial in resolving the issues posed before the court; and (b) the issuance of the
subpoenas will only unduly delay the hearing of the criminal cases.
On appeal, the RTC and CA denied due course to and dismissed the petition for petitioners failure
to show that Judge Contreras committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in ordering the denial of their request for the issuance of the documents. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: WON the court erred in denying the petitioners request for the production of the requested
documents.
Ruling:
No, A subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or
trial of an action or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or for the taking of
his deposition. In this jurisdiction, there are two (2) kinds of subpoena, to wit: subpoena ad
testificandum and subpoena duces tecum. The first is used to compel a person to testify, while the
second is used to compel the production of books, records, things or documents therein specified
Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied
that the following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or other things requested must
appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such
books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness)
Here, the books and documents that petitioner requested to be subpoenaed are designated and
described in his request with definiteness and readily identifiable. The test of definiteness, therefore, is
satisfied in this case. It is, however, in the matter of relevancy of those books and documents to the
pending criminal cases that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his burden.
The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check
that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. The offense is already consummated from the
very moment a person issues a worthless check, albeit payment of the value of the check, either by the
drawer or by the drawee bank, within five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor given to the drawer
is a complete defense because the prima facie presumption that the drawer had knowledge of the
insufficiency of his funds or credit at the time of the issuance of the check and on its presentment for
payment is thereby rebutted by such payment.
Based on the records below and as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner had been
issued by Cals Corporation with temporary receipts in the form of yellow pad slips of paper evidencing
his payments, which pad slips had been validated by the corporation itself. Clear it is, then, that the
production of the books and documents requested by petitioner are not indispensable to prove his
defense of payment. Besides, the irrelevancy of such books and documents would appear on their very
face thereof, what the fact that the requested Audited Income Statements, Audited Balance Sheets,
Income Tax Returns, etc. pertained to the years 1994 to 1999 which could not have reflected petitioners
alleged payment because the subject transaction happened in 1993. It is clear that the petitioner was
just embarking on a fishing expedition to derail the placid flow of trial. It becomes evident to this Court
that petitioners request for the production of books and documents referred to in his request are
nakedly calculated to merely lengthen the proceedings in the subject criminal cases, if not to fish for
evidence. The Court deeply deplores petitioners tactics and will never allow the same.

Soriano vs Laguardia

Facts:

On August 10, 2004, petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made the
following remarks:

Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;

Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae
ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di
ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae
yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito

Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were
lodged by Jessie L. Galapon member of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against petitioner in
connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly
alluded to in petitioners remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV
program Ang Tamang Daan. Thereafter, the MTRCB suspended the showing of Ang Dating
Daan program for 20 days. Hence, this petion before the SC to nullify the preventive suspension
order thus issued. Petitioner urges the striking down of the decision suspending him from
hosting Ang Dating Daan on the main ground that the decision violates, apart from his religious
freedom, his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Constitution.

Issues:

 Issue: W/N petitioner’s utterance was protected by freedom of speech and expression.
 W/N petitioner’s utterance was religious speech protected by religious freedom.

1. No, It has been established in this jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-value expression
refers to libelous statements, obscenity or pornography, false or misleading advertisement,
insulting or fighting words, i.e., those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite
an immediate breach of peace and expression endangering national security. The SC ruled that
―Soriano‘s statement can be treated as obscene, at least with respect to the average child,‖
and thus his utterances cannot be considered as protected speech. Citing decisions from the US
Supreme Court, the High Court said that the analysis should be ―context based‖ and found the
utterances to be obscene after considering the use of television broadcasting as a medium, the
time of the show, and the ―G‖ rating of the show, which are all factors that made the
utterances susceptible to children viewers. The Court emphasized on how the uttered words
could be easily understood by a child literally rather than in the context that they were used.‖
The SC also said ―that the suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a ―form of permissible
administrative sanction or subsequent punishment. The Court said that the suspension ―is not
a prior restraint on the right of petitioner to continue with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as
a permit was already issued to him by MTRCB,‖ rather, it was a sanction for ―the indecent
contents of his utterances in a ―G‖ rated TV program.‖
2. No, The Court ruled that there is nothing in petitioner’s statements subject of the complaints
expressing any particular religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission.
The fact that he came out with his statements in a televised bible exposition program does not
automatically accord them the character of a religious discourse. Plain and simple insults
directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious speech. Even petitioners
attempts to place his words in context show that he was moved by anger and the need to seek
retribution, not by any religious conviction.

Delos Santos vs Roman Catholic

Facts:

On December 9, 1938, a homestead patent covering a tract of land situated in the municipality of
Midsayap, Cotabato, was granted to Julio Sarabillo. On December 31, 1940, Julio Sarabillo sold two
hectares of said land to the Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap for the sum of P800 to be dedicated to
educational and charitable purposes. It was expressly agreed upon that the sale was subject to the
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Thereafter, the sale was approved the deed of sale was registered in the Office of the Register of. No
new title was issued in favor of the Roman Catholic Church although the deed was annotated on the
back of the title issued to the homesteader.

In the meantime, Julio Sarabillo died and intestate proceedings were instituted for the settlement of his
estate and Catalina de los Santos was appointed administratrix of the estate. And having found in the
course of her administration that the sale of the land to the Roman Catholic Church was made in
violation of section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the administratrix instituted the present action
in the CFI of Cotabato praying that the sale be declared null and void and of no legal effect. In their
answer defendants claim that the sale is legal and valid it having been executed for educational and
charitable purposes and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. They further
claim that, even if it be declared null and void, its immediate effect would be not the return of the land
to appellee but the reversion of the property to the State as ordained by law. Defendants also set up as
a defense the doctrine of pari delicto.

Issue: WON the sale was valid

WON in pari delicto apply in this case

Ruling:

1. No, the sale was made before the expiration of the period of five years from the date of
the issuance of the patent and as such is null and void it being in contravention of
section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. The fact that it was expressly stipulated in
the deed of sale that it was subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources and the approval was sought and obtained or the fact that the deed
of sale was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds cannot have the effect of
validating the sale for the reason that the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources does not have any valid curative effect. That approval is merely a
formality which the law requires if the sale is effected after the term of five years but
before the expiration of a period of 25 years for the purpose of testing the validity of the
sale on constitutional grounds. The provision of the law which prohibits the sale or
encumbrance of the homestead within five years after the grant of the patent is
mandatory. This cannot be obviated even if official approval is granted beyond the
expiration of that period, because the purpose of the law is to promote a definite public
policy, which is "to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of
public land which the State has gratuitously given to him.

2. No, he principle underlying pari delicto as known here and in the United States is not
absolute in its application. It recognizes certain exceptions one of them being when its
enforcement or application runs counter to an avowed fundamental policy or to public
interest. Here, the case within the exception. Here appellee desires to nullify a
transaction which was done in violation of the law. Ordinarily the principle of pari
delicto would apply to her because her predecessor-in-interest has carried out the sale
with the presumed knowledge of its illegality but because the subject of the transaction
 is a piece of land, public policy requires that she, as heir, be not prevented from re-
acquiring it because it was given by law to her family for her home and cultivation. This
is the policy on which our homestead law is predicated

Guido vs Rural Progress Administration

Facts:

This a petition for prohibition to prevent the Rural Progress Administration from proceeding with the
expropriation of the petitioner Justa G. Guido's land, two adjoining lots, part commercial, with a
combined area of 22,655 square meters, situated in Maypajo, Caloocan, Rizal. She contend that the land
sought to be expropriated is commercial and therefore excluded within the purview of the provisions of
Act 539 and the majority of the tenants have entered with the petitioner valid contracts for lease, or
option to buy at an agreed price, and expropriation would impair those existing obligation of contract.

Issue: Won the expropriation is valid

Held:

No, There are indeed powerful considerations, aside from the intrinsic meaning of section 4 of Article
XIII of the Constitution, for interpreting Act No. 539 in a restrictive sense. The protection against
deprivation of property without due process for public use without just compensation occupies the
forefront positions in the Bill for private use relieves the owner of his property without due process of
law; and the prohibition that "private property should not be taken for public use without just
compensation". It has been truly said that the assertion of the right on the part of the legislature to take
the property of and citizen and transfer it to another, even for a full compensation, when the public
interest is not promoted thereby, is claiming a despotic power, and one inconsistent with very just
principle and fundamental maxim of a free government.

Here, The promotion of social justice ordained by the Constitution does not supply paramount basis for
untrammeled expropriation of private land by the Rural Progress Administration or any other
government instrumentality. The condemnation of a small property in behalf of 10, 20 or 50 persons
and their families does not inure to the benefit of the public to a degree sufficient to give the use public
character. The expropriation proceedings at bar have been instituted for the economic relief of a few
families devoid of any consideration of public health, public peace and order, or other public advantage.
What is proposed to be done is to take plaintiff's property, which for all we know she acquired by sweat
and sacrifice for her and her family's security, and sell it at cost to a few lessees who refuse to pay the
stipulated rent or leave the premises.

Portuguez vs GSIS Family Savings Bank

Facts:

Petitioner was employed by the respondent bank as utility clerk in 1971. Since then, he had been
promoted repeatedly up to 1998 when he was temporarily assigned as caretaker of the bank and
designated as Acting Asst. VP and OIC in June of 1998. Respondent bank is a banking institution
originally known as Royal Savings Bank. In 1983-84, it underwent serious liquidity problems and was
placed under receivership by the Central Bank, which ordered its closure in July of 1984. In 1987, the
GSIS acquired the interest of the respondent bank and took over the control &mgt of the bank and
renamed it as GSIS Family Savings Bank.

Accordingly, Amando Macalino (Macalino) was appointed as President of the respondent bank. In view
of Macalino's appointment, the designation of petitioner as Officer-In-Charge and caretaker of
respondent bank was recalled; however, his appointment as Acting Assistant Vice-President, was
retained. In line w/ its policy to attain financial stability, the respondent bank adopted measures, one of
w/c is an early retirement program. In april of 2001, petitioner opted to avail himself of this retirement
package, (supposedly under protest) & received the amt of P1,342M as retirement pay.

Injuly 2002, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent bank for constructive dismissal &
underpayment of wages, 13th month pay & retirement benefits before the Labor Arbiter. He alleged
discrimination & unfair treatment, and intense pressure on the part of the respondent bank forced him
to retire at the prime of his life.

The NLRC ruled in favor of the petitioner. However, on appeal the CA reverse the decision of the NLRC.
Hence this petition

Issue: WON there was constructive dismissal

Held:

No, Constructive dismissal is quitting because continued Employment is rendered impossible,

unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank & a dimunition in pay. May also mean
an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an Employer may become so unbearable on the
part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign . Petitioner claims he was
discriminated against as new hires were given higher salaries than he was receiving.

Petitioner failed to established that he possessed the same skills, competencies & expertise as those
newly hired to eliminate the possibility of substantial distinction that may warrant unequal treatment
between them.

Petitioner contends that in cases of constructive dismissal, the burden of proof rests on the employer to
show that the Employee was dismissed on a valid & just cause. But this legal principle presupposes that
there is indeed an involuntary separation from Employment & the facts attendant to such forced
separation was clearly established, w/c the petitioner failed to do. It was him who availed of the
voluntary retirement program. And absent the showing of duress, the presumption is that it was done
by him voluntarily. While the state promotes the utmost protection of labor against capital, it does not
mean that the working class is upheld in all labor dispute. The law also recognizes the rights of
management.