Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Sumulong v.

Guerrero 154 SCRA 461 (1987) F: On writs of execution" or "orders of demolition" issued against Actually, there should no longer be any doubt, on this matter.
December 5, 1977, the National Housing Authority filed a that occupants of the estate. The petitioner also seeks for In a series of cases previously passed upon by this Court,
complaint for the expropriation of 25 hectares of land in the issuance of an order to compel the presiding judges of involving the same private respondents and property, and
Antipolo, Rizal pursuant to PD 1224 authorizing the the Courts of First Instance and Courts of Quezon City to occasioned by the congressional approval of the same
expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. Among dismiss the cases of accion publiciana or for ejectment filed Republic Act No. 2616, it was definitively ruled that until the
those lands sought to be expropriated are the petitioners'' by said Corporation again the aforesaid occupants. This proceedings for condemnation have been fully instituted and
lands. They brought this suit in the SC challenging the action is predicated on the averment that on November 10, possession of the property is taken over by the condemnor,
constitutionality of PD 1224. HELD: Petitioners contend that 1960, the Land Tenure Administration was directed by the the enforcement of final decrees of eviction may not be
socialized housing for the purpose of condemnation Executive Secretary to initiate proceedings for the lawfully suspended. 5 Thus:
proceedings is not public use since it will benefit only a expropriation of the Tatalon Estate.
handful of people. The "public use" requirement is an
... the mere filing of the condemnation proceedings for the
evolving concept influences by changing conditions. Urban
Reliance is thus placed by petitioner upon the provisions of benefit of tenants can not, by itself alone, lawfully suspend
renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low-cost
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 2616. There is no averment the condemnee's dominical rights, whether of possession,
housing is recognized as a public purpose, not only because
however in the petition that any expropriation proceedings enjoyment or disposition. And this is especially the case
of the expanded concept of public use but also because of
has in fact been actually instituted before the courts. In view where final and executory judgments of ejectment have been
specific provisions in the Constitution. Shortage in housing is
of recent developments, since the submission of this case, obtained against the occupants of the property. (Tuason and
a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly
the parties were required on November 24, 1972, to Co. Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, L-18128, Dec. 26,
affects public health, safety, the environment and, in sum,
comment whether or not in their view, the case has been 1961).
the general welfare. Petitioners claim that there are vast
rendered moot. In the comment of respondent Gregorio
areas of lands in Rizal hundreds of hectares of which are
Araneta, Inc. said party stated that, while a "preliminary
owned by a few landowners only. Why should the NHA pick As heretofore adverted to nothing has been presented in the
conference" has been held between the People's Homesite
their small lots? Expropriation is not confined to landed case at bar, to show that an action for expropriation of the
& Housing Corporation and the respondent, on the unsold
estates. The test to be applied for a valid expropriation of lots allegedly occupied by the 1,500 persons named in
lots within the Tatalon Estate, which may still be acquired by
private lands was the area of the land and not the number of Annex "A" of the petition has actually been instituted and is
the government for distribution to the bona-fide occupants
people who stood to be benefitted. The State acting through being pursued by the government, nor is there proof that the
thereof pursuant to Republic Act No. 2616, said party
the NHA is vested with broad discretion to designate the supposed appropriated amount of P10,000,000.00, for the
"cannot determine the outcome of the announced desire of
property. The property owner may not interpose objections purchase of the Tatalon Estate by the government, has been
the Government to acquire said property pursuant to said
merely because in their judgment some other property would duly certified as available for that purpose. Under such
have been more suitable. The provisions on just circumstances no valid ground has really been established
compensation found in PD 1224, 1259, and 1313 are the to restrict respondents' exercise of their dominical rights over
same provisions which were declared unconstitutional in In the absence of any proceeding for expropriation instituted their property.
EPZA v. Dulay (1987) for being encroachments on judicial before the courts, petitioner has clearly no cause of action. It
prerogatives. is true that Republic Act No. 2616, insofar as it expropriated
In view of the conclusion thus arrived at, We find it
singularly a particular private property, had survived the
unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised by the
challenge of being discriminatory, and was declared free
from constitutional infirmity. 1 Nevertheless, this Court has
G.R. No. L-31814 January 31, 1973
also ruled that Section 4 2 thereof, which places a restraint
upon the exercise and enjoyment by the owner of certain WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed, without
RAYMUNDO Z. FAMILARA, petitioner, rights over its property, is justifiable only if the government costs.
vs. takes possession of the land and is in a position to make a
J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., coetaneous payment of just compensation to its owner. 3
Manotok v. NHA 150 SCRA 89 (1987) F: Petitioners are the
CITY ENGINEER PANTALEON TABORA OF QUEZON There could not be any other way by which the validity of the
owners of two large estates known as the Tambunting
CITY, ALL THE JUDGES PRESIDING OVER THE provision may be sustained. Definitely, to hold that the mere
Estate and Sunog-Apog in Tondo, Manila, both of which
VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE COURTS OF FIRST declaration of an intention to expropriate, without instituting
were declared expropriated in two decrees issued by
INSTANCE AND CITY COURTS OF QUEZON CITY, and the corresponding proceeding therefor before the courts,
President Marcos, PD 1669 and PD 1670. The petitioners
THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. with assurance of just compensation, would already preclude
contend that the decrees violate their constitutional right to
the exercise by the owner of his rights of ownership over the
due process and equal protection since by their mere
land, or bar the enforcement of any final ejectment order that
An original action by the barrio captain of Barrio Tatalon, in passage their properties were automatically expropriated
the owner may have obtained against any intruder into the
his own behalf and in representation of 1,500 "bona-fide" and they were immediately deprived of the ownership and
land, is to sanction an act which is indeed confiscatory and
occupants of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City, to enjoin the possession thereof without being given the chance to
therefore offensive to the Constitution. For it must be
respondent Corporations, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and oppose such expropriation. The government on the other
realized that in a condemnation case, it is from the
Gregorio Araneta, Inc., "from bulldozing and fencing any hand contends that the power of eminent domain is inherent
condemnor's taking possession of the property that the
portion" of the Tatalon Estate "and/or from selling" any of the in the State and when the legislature or the President
owner is deprived of the benefits of ownership, 4 such as
lots therein, "and/or from filing ejectment cases" against the through his law-making powers exercises this power, the
possession, management and disposition thereof. Before
"bona-fide" occupants of the estate, the respondent City public use and public necessity of the expropriation and the
that time, the proprietary right of the owner over his property
Engineer Quezon City from issuing "building and fencing fixing of the just compensation become political in nature
must be recognized.
permits" to purchasers of lots within the Tatalon Estate, and and the courts must respect the decision. HELD: The
respondent City Sheriff of the same city from "implementing challenged decrees are unfair in the procedures adopted
and the powers given to the NHA. The Tambunting City. Later on, however, the Ministry of Public Highways of enacting BP 340. Thus the anterior decision of the Court
subdivision is summarily proclaimed a blighted area and decided to make the proposed extension pass through must yield to the subsequent legislative fiat
directly expropriated by decree without the slightest Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets. Because of the protests
semblance of a hearing or any proceeding whatsoever. The of residents of the latter, the Commission on Human
expropriation is instant and automatic to take effect Settlements recommended the reversion to the original plan, NAPOCOR v. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991) F: For the
immediately upon the signing of the decree. No deposit but the Ministry argued the new route withh save the construction of its 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines,
before the taking is required. There is not provision for any government P2 million. The government filed expropriation Napocor''s lines have to pass the lands belonging to
interest to be paid upon unpaid installments. Not only are the proceedings against the owners of Fernando Rein and Del respondents. Unsuccessful with its negotiations for the
owners given absolutely no opportunity to contest the Pan streets, among whom was petitioner. HELD: The choice acquisition of the right of way easements, Napocor was
expropriation, or question the amount of payments fixed by of Fernando Rein and Del Pan streets is arbitrayr and should constrained to file eminent domain proceedings. ISSUE:
the decree, but the decision of the NHA are expressly not receive judicial aprpoval. The Human Settlements W/N petitoner should be made to pay simple easement fee
declared beyond judicial review. PD 1669 and 1670 are Commission concluded that the cost factor is so minimal that or full compensation for the land traversed by its transmissin
declared unconstitutional. Teehankee, CJ, concurring: The it can be disregarded in making a choice between the two lines. RULING: In RP v. PLDT, the SC ruled that "Normally,
judgment at bar now learly overturns the majority ruling in lines. The factor of functionality strongly militates against the the power of eminent domain results in the taking or
JM Tuason v. LTA that the power of Congress to designate choice of Fernando Rein and Del Pan streets, while the appropriation of the title to, and possession of, the
the particular property to be taken adn how much may be factor of social and economic impact bears grievously on the expropriated property, but no cogent reason appears why
condemned thereof must be duly recognized, leaving only as residents of Cuneta Avenue. While the issue would seem to said power may not be availed of to impose only a burrden
a judicial question whether in the exercise of such boil down to a choice between people, on one hand, and upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of
competence, the party adversely affected is the victim of progress and development, on the other, it is to be title or possession. It is unquestionable that real property
partiality and prejudice. The SC now rules that such singling remembered that progress and development are carried out may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of
out of properties does not foreclose judicial scrutiny as to for the benefit of the people right of way." In this case, the easement is definitely a taking
whether such expropriation by legislative act transgresses under the power of eminent domain. Considering the nature
the due process and equal protection and just compensation Republic v. De Knecht, 182 SCRA 142 (1990) F: De and effect of the installation of the transmission lines, the
guarantees of the Constitution. Knecht was one of the owners of several properties along limitations imposed by the NPC against the use of the land
the Fernando Rein-Del Pan streets which the Government (that no plant higher than 3 meters is allowed below the
sought to expropriate to give way to the extension of EDSA lines) for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of
Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes 123 SCRA 220 F: The and the construction of drainage facilities. De Knecht filed a ts ordinary use. For these reasons, the owner of the property
Philippine Tourism Authority sought the expropriation of 282 case to restrain the Government from proceeding with the expropriated is entitled to a just compensation which should
Ha of land in Barangay Malubog and Babag in Cebu City. expropriation. Her prayer was denied by the lower court but neither be more nor less, whenever it is possible to make the
upon deposit of an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of upon certiorari, the SC reversed the lower court decision and assessment, than the money equivalent of said property.
the property, the CFI authorized the PTA to take immediate granted the relief asked for by De Knecht ruling that the Just equiivalent has always been understood to be the just
possession of the property. The charter of the PTA expropriation was arbitrary. The case was remanded to the and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the
authorizes it to acquire through condemnation proceedings lower court. No further action was taken despite the SC thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the
lands for tourist zone development of a sports complex. The decision until two years later, in 1983, when the Government expropriation. The price or value of the land and its character
petitioners who are occupants of the lands, filed a petition for moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the at the time of taking by the Govt. are the criteria for
certiorari in the SC. They contended that (1) the taking was Legislature has since enacted BP 340 expropriating the determining just cmpensation.
not for public use; (2) the land was covered by the land same properties for the same purpose. The lower court
reform program; and (3) expropriation would impair the denied tthe motion. Appeal. RULING: While it is true that
obligation of contracts. HELD: The concept of public use is said final judgment of this Curt on the subject becomes the Due process
not limited to traditional purposes for the construction of law of the case between the parties, it is equally true that the
roads, bridges, and the like. The idea that "public use" right of petitioner to take private properties for public use
means "use by the public" has been discarded. As long as upon payment of just compensation is so provided in the G.R. No. L-65848 May 24, 1985
the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of Constitution and the laws. Such expropriation proceeding
eminent domain comes into play. It is accurate to state then may be undertaken by the petitioner not only by voluntary HERNANDO C. LAYNO, SR., petitioner
that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for negotiation with the land owners but also by taking vs.
the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. appropriate court action or by legislation. When BP 340 was THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE PEOPLE OF
The petititioners have not shown that the area being passed, it appears that it was based on supervening events THE PHILIPPINES, and THE HONORABLE
developed is land reform area and that the affected persons that occured after the 1980 decision of the SC on the De TANODBAYAN, respondents.
have been given emancipation patents and certificates of Knecht case was rendered. The social impact factor which
land transfer. The contract clause has never been regarded persuaded the Court to consider this extension to be
as a barrier to the exercise of the police power and likewise arbitrary had disappeared. Moreover, the said decision is no The validity of the mandatory provision of the Anti-Graft and
eminent domain. obstacle to the legislative arm of the Government in Corrupt Practices Act, 1 suspending from office any public
thereafter making its own independent assessment of the officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
circumstances then pravailing as to the propriety of information under such statute, is assailed in this certiorari
De Knecht v. Bautista 100 SCRA 660 (1980) F: The plan to undertaking the expropriation of properties in question and and prohibition proceeding on the ground that it is violative of
extend EDSA to Roxas Boulevard to be ultimately linked to thereafter by enacting the corresponding legislation as it did the constitutional presumption of innocence. 2 Petitioner
the Cavite Coastal Road Project, originally called for the in this case. The Court agrees in the wisdom and necessity Hernando Layno Sr.. is the duly elected Municipal Mayor of
expropriation of properties along Cuneta Avenue in Pasay Lianga, Surigao del Sur. He was accused in an information
filed by respondent Tanodbayan "of grave abuse of authority 1. A succinct statement of the doctrine on unconstitutional could in effect, be removed without a finding of a cause duly
and evident bad faith in the exercise of his official and/or application was set forth in Pintacasi v. Court of Agrarian established after due hearing, in violation of the
administrative duties" for "knowing fully well that he has no Relations 16 in these words: "A law may be valid and yet Constitution." 21 Clearly then, the policy of the law mandated
authority," he suspended and prohibited Vice-Mayor susceptible to the charge of its being unconstitutionally by the Constitution frowns at a suspension of indefinite
Bernardita Resus and three Sangguniang Bayan members 3 applied." 17 This is one such case. duration. In this particular case, the mere fact that petitioner
from participating and exercising their official functions" as is facing a charge under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
such thus causing them injury "consisting of the salaries due Act does not justify a different rule of law. To do so would be
2. Petitioner is a duly elected municipal mayor of Lianga,
to said officials not [being] received by them." 4 to negate the safeguard of the equal protection guarantee.
Surigao del Sur. His term of office does not expire until 1986.
Were it not for this information and the suspension decreed
The information against petitioner was filed by respondent by the Sandiganbayan according to the Anti-Graft and 4. Hence the conclusion reached by the Court as to the
Tanodbayan with respondent Sandiganbayan on May 17, Corrupt Practices Act, he would have been all this while in unconstitutional application of the mandatory suspension as
1983. 5 He was charged with violating paragraph (e), Section the full discharge of his functions as such municipal mayor. applied to petitioner in accordance with the circumstances of
3 of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended. 6 Petitioner was He was elected precisely to do so. As of October 26, 1983, this case.
then arraigned on October 3, 1983, and he pleaded not he has been unable to. It is a basic assumption of the
guilty. 7 There was earlier submitted as far back as August, electoral process implicit in the right of suffrage that the
WHEREFORE, this certiorari petition is granted and the
1983 with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to Suspend Accused people are entitled to the services of elective officials of their
preventive suspension imposed on petitioner Hernando C.
Pendente Lite. 8 Notwithstanding petitioner's opposition to choice. For misfeasance or malfeasance, any of them could,
Layno, Sr. is set aside, thus enabling him to assume once
such motion, respondent Sandiganbayan suspended him on of course, be proceeded against administratively or, as in
again the functions of municipal mayor of Lianga, Surigao
October 26, 1983. 9 Accordingly, on October 3, 4 and 5, this instance, criminally. In either case, his culpability must
del Sur, without prejudice to the continuance of the trial of
1983, respondent Sandiganbayan conducted hearings and be established. Moreover, if there be a criminal action, he is
the pending case against him in the Sandiganbayan. This
received evidence of the prosecution. 10 It was further entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence. A
decision is immediately executory. No costs.
alleged that respondent Sandiganbayan (Second Division) preventive suspension may be justified. Its continuance,
set the case for further hearings on January 11, 12, and 13, however, for an unreasonable length of time raises a due
1984. 11 process question. For even if thereafter he were acquitted, in TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
the meanwhile his right to hold office had been nullified. No. L-63915. April 24, 1985
Clearly, there would be in such a case an injustice suffered
In the resolution issued by this Court on January 5, 1984,
by him. Nor is he the only victim. There is injustice inflicted FACTS:
respondents were required to file an answer within ten days
likewise on the people of Lianga. They were deprived of the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent
from notice. That was done. There was on the whole
services of the man they had elected to serve as mayor. In public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the
admission that the facts were as alleged. Respondents
that sense, to paraphrase Justice Cardozo, the protracted Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of
denied, however, that the law is as set forth in the petition.
continuance of this preventive suspension had outrun the instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive
More specifically, it was asserted that the order of the
bounds of reason and resulted in sheer oppression. A denial orders, letters of implementation and administrative orders.
Sandiganbayan "suspending petitioner pendente lite does
of due process is thus quite manifest. It is to avoid such an Respondents, through the Solicitor General would have this
not violate the latter's constitutional right to be presumed
unconstitutional application that the order of suspension case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have
innocent." 12 Such a presumption "is a guaranty that no
should be lifted. no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition.
person shall be convicted of a crime except upon his guilt
The view is submitted that in the absence of any showing
[being] established by proof beyond reasonable doubt." 13
that the petitioner are personally and directly affected or
Accordingly, such suspension "does not impair petitioner's 3. Nor is it solely the denial of procedural due process that is
prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential
foregoing constitutional right since the same is not a penalty apparent. There is likewise an equal protection question. If
issuances in question.
or a criminal punishment, because it was not imposed by the the case against petitioner Layno were administrative in
Respondent further contend that publication in the Official
court in a judgment of conviction or as a result of judicial character the Local Government Code would be applicable.
Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity
proceeding." 14 Further: "The suspension is merely a It is therein clearly provided that while preventive suspension
of the law where the law themselves provides for their own
precautionary or preventive measure issued even before the is allowable for the causes therein enumerated, there is this
effectivity dates.
case is tried on its merits, purposely to ensure the fair and emphatic limitation on the duration thereof: "In all cases,
just trial of the case." 15 preventive suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days
after the start of said suspension." 18 It may be recalled that
Whether the presidential decrees in question which contain
the principle against indefinite suspension applies equally to
The plea for restraining order was not granted by this Court. special provisions as to the date they are to take effect,
national government officials. So it was held in the leafing
Thereafter the memoranda by both parties were submitted. publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for
case of Garcia v. Hon. Executive Secretary. 19 According to
Before a decision could be rendered on the merits, there their effectivity?
the opinion of Justice Barrera: "To adopt the theory of
was an urgent motion to lift the order of suspension filed on
respondents that an officer appointed by the President,
February 13, 1985 stressing the need for a resolution of RULING:
facing administrative charges, can be preventively
such question. This Court, after dealing on such motion as Publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those
suspended indefinitely, would be to countenance a situation
wen as on the merits of the case, is of the view that this cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its
where the preventive suspension can, in effect, be the
petition need not be resolved by a ruling on the validity of the effectivity date, for then the date of publication is material for
penalty itself without a finding of guilt after due hearing,
provision on mandatory suspension. It suffices at this stage determining its date of effectivity, which is the 15th day
contrary to the express mandate of the Constitution and the
that this Court rules that there is an unconstitutional following its publication, but not when the law itself provides
Civil Service law." 20 Further: "In the guise of a preventive
application of the assailed provision of the Anti-Graft and for the date when it goes into effect.
suspension, his term of office could be shortened and he
Corrupt Practices Act. Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in
the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the being served on petitioner's counsel. Upon that case being called 2. There is an additional reinforcement to the correctness of the
date of its effectivity. on that date, there was a motion on the part of petitioner's counsel challenged order of dismissal, when the nature of a pre-trial is
The publication of all presidential issuances of a public to set the case for pre-trial. The provincial fiscal who represented taken into consideration. 7 As set forth in an opinion penned by
nature or of general applicability is mandated by law. the respondents informed the Court that he was ready for the pre- Justice Castro, speaking for the Court, in Permanent Concrete
Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, trial but, if no amicable agreement was reached, the trial proper Products, Inc. v. Teodoro: 8 " "One of the objectives of pre-trial
forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose should be conducted, as his witnesses had come all the way from procedure is to take trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and
burdens on the people, such as tax revenue measures, fall Manila and expenses in the amount of about P400.00 had been maneuvering." Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that
within this category. Other presidential issuances which incurred by the government. Counsel for petitioner was adamant, all issues necessary to the disposition of a cause are properly
apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as however, insisting that the notice of hearing as such was null and raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are
administrative and executive orders need not be published void. When the Court inquired as to where the petitioner was, expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and
on the assumption that they have been circularized to all counsel answered that he was in Cebu City, upon his own advice, fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may
concern. on the assumption that a hearing on the merits could not be held. involve privilege or impeaching matter." 9 The lower court
The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of From the standpoint of the court, this step taken by petitioner therefore acted in accordance with law and sound reason when it
general application, which have not been published, shall smacked of a dilatory tactic, as evidenced by its being raised only noted that the facts being undisputed and the legal issue likewise
have no force and effect. on that morning, notwithstanding the fact that notice was sent as being clear, pre-trial, under the circumstances, would not be a
far back as September 10, 1964 and that at any rate, petitioner not necessity even on the assumption that the belated insistence of its
being present, a pre-trial could not anyway be held. Moreover, the observance by petitioner was motivated in entire good faith. law li
notification as worded did not preclude a pre-trial, which
G.R. No. L-35701 September 19, 1973
incidentally was not at all necessary as the question posed was
The suspicion entertained by the lower court as to its being
legal. Hence the order of dismissal, based on what for the lower
resorted to as a dilatory tactic by petitioner was not without basis.
ARTURO H. TROCIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. JORGE court, under the circumstances, was a lack of interest to prosecute
He had more than a month, from September 9 to October 14, 1966,
LABAYO, Undersecretary of Finance; SIXTO B. TADEO, the case.c law library
to seek clarification of the nature of the scheduled hearing. What
Assistant Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental; and
was even more revealing as to his lack of good faith was his
ABELARDO SUBIDO, Commissioner of Civil Service,
The matter was elevated to the Court of Appeals on the ground that absence on the day of hearing. What was the lower court to make
there was a denial of procedural due process as the notice of the of such tell-tale conduct? Did it not indicate lack of interest to
hearing without the specification that it should be for pre-trial prosecute? There was nothing then, that did smack of arbitrariness
The novel question in this case certified to us by the Court of deprived the accused of a procedural right and infected the in its ruling as it did. There was no affront to the sense of justice
Appeals is whether or not a party is denied his constitutional right proceedings with unfairness. As the question raised was purely and of fair play which is essential for an assault on any actuation of
to procedural due process if in the notice of the hearing the suit legal, the case, as noted at the outset, was elevated to us. law librar governmental agency predicated on a denial of due process
filed by him, it was not specified that the purpose thereof was for a succeed. Instead of this futile insistence on a pre-trial, which would
pre-trial. There is no instrinsic difficulty posed by such a query. serve no useful purpose, petitioner could have impressed on the
There is no legal justification then, as already made clear, for us to
The answer would appear to be rather obvious. Such a purely court the legal support for his stand that the order of dismissal by
give our seal of approval to the contention vigorously pressed by
formal objection is hardly impressed with any element indicative respondent Commissioner of Civil Service was devoid of legality.
petitioner that there was a denial of procedural due process. In
of that absence of fairness which is indispensable for an attack on a He did nothing of the kind. Under the undeniable facts of record,
reaching such a conclusion, we were aided considerably by the
due process ground to succeed. The failure of the lower court then the lower court certainly could have decreed the dismissal without
thorough brief submitted by the then Solicitor General, now
to use language more explicit in character does not lend itself to any legitimate fear that its order suffers from the constitutional
Associate Justice, Antonio P. Barredo and the then Assistant
such a reproach. The order of dismissal for failure of petitioner infirmity of failure to accord respect to the due process safeguard.
Solicitor General, now judge, Pacifico de Castro, the persuasive
Arturo H. Trocio, now appellant, to prosecute, is affirmed. law libr
quality of which was enhanced not only by the plausibility of the
assertions made with support from authoritative doctrines, but also WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court of October 14, 1964
There is no dispute as to what transpired. On August 11, 1964, by the failure of petitioner to file a reply brief. law library dismissing the petition is affirmed. With costs against petitioner.
petitioner filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
1. No merit attaches to the contention of petitioner that the notice
against respondents' 1 to set aside decision of respondent Abelardo
as to the hearing scheduled for October 14 should specify that it
Subido dismissing him from the position of Municipal Treasurer of
was for a pre-trial. A hearing as known to the law is not confined
Mambajao, Camiguin, which is being enforced by the other
to a trial but embraces the several stages of litigation. It does not
respondents on the ground of its nullity. It was his contention that
preclude pre-trial. Outside of the American cases cited 2 by
the charges against him for neglect of duty, grave misconduct and
respondents, mention can be made of authorities in this jurisdiction
oppression in office were not duly proved, there being a denial of a
that speak to the same effect. A hearing "does not necessarily mean
motion for postponement on his part, thus infecting the
presentation of evidence." 3 It could cover the determination of
proceedings with grave infirmity. There was, on August 15, 1964,
whether an accused is entitled to bail 4 or the submission for the
a written opposition to the issuance of a writ of preliminary
court's determination of a motion to dismiss, 5 or any motion for
injunction, and on August 27, 1964, an answer to such petition
that matter. 6 It does not admit of doubt then, considering
wherein it was stressed that petitioner had been granted by the
furthermore what did transpire, that such a purely technical
investigating officer six postponements of the hearing of the case
objection on the part of petitioner raised at the last moment should
to afford him a chance to engage the services of counsel. Then
not be taken too seriously. Much less does it lay any basis for an
came on September 10, 1964, a notice to the parties that the case
asserted denial of procedural due
had been set for hearing on October 14 of that year, a copy thereof
process.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library