RUBI VS.

PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as
[39 PHIL 660; G.R. NO. 14078; 7 MAR 1919] necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro
as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam, and to
Facts: introduce civilized customs among them.

This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed
Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be
punished.
The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 which
states that “provincial governor of any province in which non- It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their
Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) are found is authorized, liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his
when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and companions are said to be held on the reservation established at
order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be
unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at
provincial board”. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Calapan for having run away form the reservation.
Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of
Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent Issue:
settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Further, Mangyans may only
solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a
applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. person of his liberty without due process of law.

Thereafter, the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is
No. 2, which says that the provincial governor has selected a site in constitutional.
the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of
Mangyanes in Mindoro. In that case, pursuant to Section 2145 of the Held:
Revised Administrative Code, all the Mangyans in the townships of
Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does
those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, were not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and
ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and that
Lake. Also, that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not
order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days, constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. The Court is further of
in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a
legitimate exertion of the police power, somewhat analogous to the
Indian policy of the United States. Section 2145 of the Administrative whole. The Manguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental policy,
Code of 1917 is constitutional. must be confined for a time, as we have said, for their own good and
the good of the country.
The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro
which set apart the Tigbao reservation, it will be read, assigned as Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of
reasons fort the action, the following: (1) The failure of former their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.
attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the
province; and (2) the only successfully method for educating the
Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement.
The Solicitor-General adds the following; (3) The protection of the
Manguianes; (4) the protection of the public forests in which they
roam; (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the
Manguianes.

Considered purely as an exercise of the police power, the courts

cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful
authority. It is, indeed, an unusual exercise of that power. But a great
malady requires an equally drastic remedy. One cannot hold that the
liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of
civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for
their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one
say that due process of law has not been followed.

None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due
process of law. To constitute "due process of law," as has been often
held, a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In some
instances, even a hearing and notice are not requisite a rule which is
especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the
administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases.

The idea of the provision in question is to unify the people of the

Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of
nationality. The public policy of the Government of the Philippine
Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the Filipino people as a
 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
KWONG SING VS. CITY OF MANILA
they belong to Americans, Filipinos, Chinese, or any other nationality. All, without exception,
[41 PHIL 103; G.R. NO. 15972; 11 OCT 1920]
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
Facts:
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
Kwong Sing, in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has general and the
words in Spanish or English, but mostly Arabic numbers in order to properly issue a receipt, it
same interest, filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs also questioned the
seems that the same burdens are cast upon the them. Yet, even if private rights of person or
validity of enforcing Ordinance No. 532 by the city of Manila. Ordinance No. 532 requires that
property are subjected to restraint, and even if loss will result to individuals from the
the receipt be in duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number of
enforcement of the ordinance, this is not sufficient ground for failing to uphold the power of the
articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments. The permanent
legislative body. The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for
injunction was denied by the trial court. The appellants claim is that Ordinance No. 532 savors
the public welfare.
of class legislation; putting in mind that they are Chinese nationals. It unjustly discriminates
between persons in similar circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of
Finding that the ordinance is valid, judgment is affirmed, and the petition for a preliminary
property rights. They also contest that the enforcement of the legislation is an act beyond the
injunction is denied, with costs against the appellants.
scope of their police power. In view of the foregoing, this is an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no, 532 is an act beyond the scope of police
power

Whether or not the enforcement of the same is a class legislation that infringes property rights.

Held:

Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police
power. The police power of the City of Manila to enact Ordinance No. 532 is based on
Section 2444, paragraphs (l) and (ee) of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No.
2744, authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila, with the approval of the mayor of the
city:

(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
 YU CONG ENG VS. TRINIDAD
[47 PHIL 385; G.R. NO. 20479; 6 FEB 1925]

Facts:

The petitioner, Yu Cong Eng, was charged by information in the court of first instance of
Manila, with a violation of Act 2972, which provides that (Section 1) it shall be unlawful for any
person, company, or partnership or corporation engaged in commerce, industry or any other
activity for the purpose of profit in the Philippine Islands, in accordance with existing law, to
keep its account books in any language other than English, Spanish or any local dialect. He
was arrested, his books were seized, and the trial was about to proceed, when he and the
other petitioner, Co Liam, on their own behalf, and on behalf of all the other Chinese
merchants in the Philippines, filed the petition against the fiscal, or prosecuting attorney of
Manila, and the collector of internal revenue engaged in the prosecution, and against the judge
presiding.

Issue:

Whether or Not Act 2972 is unconstitutional.

Held:

Yes. The Philippine government may make every reasonable requirement of its taxpayers to
keep proper records of their business transactions in English or Spanish or Filipino dialect by
which an adequate measure of what is due from them in meeting the cost of government can
be had. But we are clearly of opinion that it is not within the police power of the Philippine
Legislature, because it would be oppressive and arbitrary, to prohibit all Chinese merchants
from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language, and in the Chinese characters, and
thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of their business and directing its
conduct.
 As laid down in the case of Goseco v. CIR, the SC had the occasion to point out that the CIR is
not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and equity and substantial merits of
the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical
rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and
equitable.

The fact, however, that the CIR may be said to be free from rigidity of certain procedural
requirements does not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or
disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and
ANG TIBAY VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CIR) investigations of an administrative character. There cardinal primary rights which must be
[69 PHIL 635; G.R. NO. 46496; 27 FEB 1940] respected even in proceedings of this character:
Facts: (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's cause
and submit evidence in support thereof;
There was agreement between Ang Tibay and the National Labor Union, Inc (NLU). The NLU (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
alleged that the supposed lack of leather material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a (3) The decision must have something to support itself;
scheme adopted to systematically discharge all the members of the NLU, from work. And this (4) The evidence must be substantial;
averment is desired to be proved by the petitioner with the records of the Bureau of Customs (5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the
and Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather. That National Worker's Brotherhood Union hearing; or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, which was parties affected;
alleged by the NLU as an illegal one. The CIR, decided the case and elevated it to the (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own
Supreme Court, but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. But the Ang Tibay filed a independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy,
motion for opposing the said motion. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
Issue: decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various Issue involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
Whether or Not, the motion for new trial is meritorious to be granted.
The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties
Held: adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be, and the
same is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the CIR, with
To begin with the issue before us is to realize the functions of the CIR. The CIR is a special instruction that it reopen the case receive all such evidence as may be relevant, and otherwise
court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth. So ordered.
Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated
judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the government.
Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked
and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the CIR,
as will appear from perusal of its organic law is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not
only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between
employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It has
jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question,
matter controversy or disputes arising between, and/ or affecting employers and employees or
laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulates the relations between
them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of CA 103.
 Citizens or native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands; (b) citizens of
the United States residing in the Philippine Islands; (c) any
corporation or company composed wholly of citizens of the
Philippine Islands or of the United States or of both, created under the
laws of the United States, or of any State thereof, or of thereof, or the
managing agent or master of the vessel resides in the Philippine
Islands Any vessel of more than fifteen gross tons which on February
12. SMITH, BELL & COMPANY (LTD.) vs NATIVIDAD G.R. No. eighth, nineteen hundred and eighteen, had a certificate of Philippine
15574 September 17, 1919 Facts: Smith, Bell & Co., (Ltd.), is a register under existing law, shall likewise be deemed a vessel of
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine domestic ownership so long as there shall not be any change in the
Islands. A majority of its stockholders are British subjects. It is the ownership thereof nor any transfer of stock of the companies or
owner of a motor vessel known as the Bato built for it in the corporations owning such vessel to person not included under the last
Philippine Islands in 1916, of more than fifteen tons gross The Bato preceding paragraph. The first paragraph of the Philippine Bill of
was brought to Cebu in the present year for the purpose of Rights of the Philippine Bill, repeated again in the first paragraph of
transporting plaintiff's merchandise between ports in the Islands. the Philippine Bill of Rights as set forth in the Jones Law, provides
Application was made at Cebu, the home port of the vessel, to the "That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any
Collector of Customs for a certificate of Philippine registry. The person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny
Collector refused to issue the certificate, giving as his reason that all to any person therein the equal protection of the laws." Counsel says
the stockholders of Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., were not citizens either that Act No. 2761 denies to Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., the equal
of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. The instant action is protection of the laws because it, in effect, prohibits the corporation
the result. On February 23, 1918, the Philippine Legislature enacted from owning vessels, and because classification of corporations based
Act No. 2761. The first section of this law amended section 1172 of on the citizenship of one or more of their stockholders is capricious,
the Administrative Code to read as follows: SEC. 1172. Certificate of and that Act No. 2761 deprives the corporation of its properly
Philippine register. — Upon registration of a vessel of domestic without due process of law because by the passage of the law
ownership, and of more than fifteen tons gross, a certificate of company was automatically deprived of every beneficial attribute of
Philippine register shall be issued for it. If the vessel is of domestic ownership in the Bato and left with the naked title to a boat it could
ownership and of fifteen tons gross or less, the taking of the not use . Issue/Held: WON the Government of the Philippine Islands,
certificate of Philippine register shall be optional with the owner. through its Legislature, can deny the registry of vessel in its
"Domestic ownership," as used in this section, means ownership coastwise trade to corporations having alien stockholders.- YES, this
vested in some one or more of the following classes of persons: (a) is a valid exercise of police power. Common carriers which in the
Philippines as in the United States and other countries are, as Lord
Hale said, "affected with a public interest," can only be permitted to often be had in certain districts." his is the same police power which
use these public waters as a privilege and under such conditions as to the United States Supreme Court say "extends to so dealing with the
the representatives of the people may seem wise. Act No. 2761 of the conditions which exist in the state as to bring out of them the greatest
Philippine Legislature, in denying to corporations such as Smith, Bell welfare in of its people." For quite similar reasons, none of the
&. Co. Ltd., the right to register vessels in the Philippines coastwise provision of the Philippine Organic Law could could have had the
trade, does not belong to that vicious species of class legislation effect of denying to the Government of the Philippine Islands, acting
which must always be condemned, but does fall within authorized through its Legislature, the right to exercise that most essential,
exceptions, notably, within the purview of the police power, and so insistent, and illimitable of powers, the sovereign police power, in the
does not offend against the constitutional provision. Ratio: The promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. Another
guaranties of the Fourteenth Amendment and so of the first paragraph notable exception permits of the regulation or distribution of the
of the Philippine Bill of Rights, are universal in their application to public domain or the common property or resources of the people of
all person within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any the State, so that use may be limited to its citizens. Even as to
differences of race, color, or nationality. The word "person" includes classification, it is admitted that a State may classify with reference to
aliens. Private corporations, likewise, are "persons" within the scope the evil to be prevented; the question is a practical one, dependent
of the guaranties in so far as their property is concerned. upon experience.
Classification with the end in view of providing diversity of treatment
may be made among corporations, but must be based upon some
reasonable ground and not be a mere arbitrary selection. Examples of
laws held unconstitutional because of unlawful discrimination against
aliens could be cited. Generally, these decisions relate to statutes
which had attempted arbitrarily to forbid aliens to engage in ordinary
kinds of business to earn their living. One of the exceptions to the
general rule, most persistent and far reaching in influence is, that
neither the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
broad and comprehensive as it is, nor any other amendment, "was
designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed
its `police power,' to prescribe regulations to promote the health,
peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and legislate
so as to increase the industries of the State, develop its resources and
add to its wealth and prosperity. From the very necessities of society,
legislation of a special character, having these objects in view, must
 Does the 5th paragraph of Section 10, RA 8042 violate the non-
impairment of contract clause of the Constitution?

RULING:

NO. The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws
newly enacted have only a prospective operation, and cannot affect
acts or contracts already perfected; however, as to laws already in
existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part
thereof. Thus, the non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services G.R. No. 167614 March 24, is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that would in any
2009 Non-impairment of Contract Clause, OFW Employment way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging
Contract or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto.
DECEMBER 4, 2017
FACTS: As aptly observed by the OSG, the enactment of R.A. No. 8042 in
1995 preceded the execution of the employment contract between
For Antonio Serrano, a Filipino seafarer, the last clause in the 5th petitioner and respondents in 1998. Hence, it cannot be argued that
paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, does not R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject clause, impaired the
magnify the contributions of OFWs to national development, but employment contract of the parties. Rather, when the parties
exacerbates the hardships borne by them by unduly limiting their executed their 1998 employment contract, they were deemed to
entitlement in case of illegal dismissal to their lump-sum salary either have incorporated into it all the provisions of R.A. No. 8042.
for the unexpired portion of their employment contract “or for three
months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less”
(subject clause). Petitioner claims that the last clause violates the
OFWs’ constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their
contract, deprives them of equal protection and denies them due
process.

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 employee’s 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 respondent’s seaman’s 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 respondent’s services were
Vinta Maritime Company v NLRC “highly recommended” and that his conduct and ability were rated
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original “very good “. Petitioners’ allegation that such remark and ratings
& full text of the case cited. Xie xie! were given to private respondent as an accommodation for future
employment fails to persuade. The Court cannot consent to such an
Vinta Maritime Company v NLRC accommodation, even if the allegation were true, as it is a blatant
G.R. No. 113911 misrepresentation. It cannot exculpate petitioners based on such
January 23, 1998 misrepresentation. When petitioners issued the accommodation,
they must have known its possible repercussions.
Facts:
Leonides Basconsillo, private respondent, filed a complaint with the Due process, the second element for a valid dismissal, requires
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration IPOEA) for illegal notice and hearing. Before the employee can be dismissed under
dismissal against Vinta Maritime Co. Inc. and Elkano Ship Art. 282, the Code requires the service of a written notice containing
Management, Inc. petitioners alleged that Leonides was dismissed a statement of the cause/s of termination and giving said employee
for his gross negligence and incompetent performance as chief ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. A notice of
engineer of the M/V Boracay. termination in writing is further required if the employee’s dismissal is
The POEA ruled that private respondent was illegally dismissed. On decided upon. The employer must furnish the worker with two written
appeal, the NLRC affirmed the POEA. Likewise, the NLRC denied notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1)
the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (2) subsequent
Issue: notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to
dismiss. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the
essential elements of due process, and neither of these elements When the case was set on hearing, the Notices of Hearings were
can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional mailed to the petitioner only after the date of
guaranty. hearing. Judge Clapis started conducting the bail hearings without an
application for bail and granting the same without
Illegally dismissed workers are entitled to the payment of their affording the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the guilt of the
salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment
accused is strong. He set a preliminary
where the employment is for a definite period. Conformably, the
administrator and the NLRC properly awarded private respondent conference seven months from the date it was set, patently contrary to
salaries for the period of the effectivity of his contract. his declaration of speedy trial for the case.
However, the judge claimed that notices were made verbally because
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed. The challenged of time constraints. Nevertheless, he stressed that
decision and resolution are affirmed. both sides were given the opportunity to be heard since in almost all
proceedings, petitioner was in court and the
orders were done in open court. He admitted that his personnel
GACAD VS. JUDGE CLAPIS JR., AM NO. RTJ-10-2257, JULY inadvertently scheduled the preliminary conference of
17, 2012. the case.
FACTS: ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of the charges.
Petitioner filed a Verified Complaint against Judge Clapis for Grave HELD: YES.
Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a
Abuse of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and violations of rule of law or standard of behavior in
Canon 1 (Rule 1.01, 1.02), Canon 2 (Rule 2.01), and connection with one’s performance of official functions and duties.
Canon 3 (Rule 3.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to a For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial
criminal case. act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to
Petitioner alleged that she met Judge Clapis at the Golden Palace violate the law, or a persistent disregard of wellknown rules. The
Hotel in Tagum City to talk about the case of misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of
her brother. The prosecutor of the said case, Graciano Arafol, judgment.
informed the petitioner that the Judge will do everything The acts of Judge Clapis in meeting the petitioner, a litigant in a case
for her favor but on the pretext that in return she has to give pending before his sala and telling those
P50,000.00 to the Judge. During the meeting, the Judge, words, constitute gross misconduct. Judge Clapis’ wrongful intention
after being satisfied of the promise of the petitioner for that amount, and lack of judicial reasoning are made overt by
told her "Sige, kay ako na bahala, gamuson nato ni the circumstances on record. Judge Clapis cannot escape liability by
sila." (Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them.) shifting the blame to his court personnel. He ought
to know that judges are ultimately responsible for order and
efficiency in their courts, and the subordinates are not the
guardians of the judge’s responsibility.
The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken together, give doubt
as to his impartiality, integrity and propriety.
His acts amount to gross misconduct constituting violations of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly: Canon 2,
Section 1 and 2; Canon 3, Section 2 and 4; and Canon 4, Section 1.
We also find Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law for
conducting bail hearings without a petition for
bail being filed by the accused and without affording the prosecution
an opportunity to prove that the guilt of the
accused is strong. Here, the act of Judge Clapis is not a mere
deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment but a
patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and
patent, such error produces an inference of bad
faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. If judges
are allowed to wantonly misuse the powers vested
in them by the law, there will not only be confusion in the
administration of justice but also oppressive disregard of the
basic requirements of due process.
Nicos

Industrial Corporation v CA
GR No. 88709 February 11, 1992 WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals
is SET ASIDE for lack of basis. This case is REMANDED to
FACTS: the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 10, for revision,
within 30 days from notice, of the Order of June 6, 1986,
The order is assailed by the petitioners on the principal ground that conformably to the requirements of Article VIII, Section 14, of the
it violates the aforementioned constitutional requirement of Article Constitution, subject to the appeal thereof, if desired, in accordance
8 Section 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners claim that it is with law.
not a reasoned decision and does not clearly and distinctly
explain how it was reached by the trial court. Petitioners RATIO:
complain that there was no analysis of their testimonial evidence or (1) The questioned order is an over-simplification of the issues,
of their 21 exhibits, the trial court merely confining itself to the and violates both the letter and spirit of Article VIII, Section 14, of
pronouncement that the sheriff's sale was valid and that it had no the Constitution.
jurisdiction over the derivative suit. There was therefore no adequate (2) It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a
factual or legal basis for the decision that could justify its review and litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an
affirmance by the Court of Appeals. explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions
(2) January 24, 1980, NICOS Industrial Corporation obtained a loan of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in
of P2,000,000.00 from private respondent United Coconut Planters favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any
Bank and to secure payment thereof executed a real estate mortgage justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to
on two parcels of land located at Marilao, Bulacan. The mortgage know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted,
was foreclosed for the supposed non-payment of the loan, and the should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision
sheriff's sale was held on July 11, 1983, without re-publication of the that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on
required notices after the original date for the auction was changed which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was
without the knowledge or consent of the mortgagor. reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is
(3) CA decision: We hold that the order appealed from as framed by unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by
the court a quo while leaving much to be desired, substantially a higher tribunal.
complies with the rules. (3) Brevity is doubtless an admirable trait, but it should not and
cannot be substituted for substance. As the ruling on this second
ISSUE: ground was unquestionably a judgment on the merits, the failure to
Whether or not the trial court’s decision is unconstitutional state the factual and legal basis thereof was fatal to the order.
(4) Kilometric decisions without much substance must be avoided,
HELD: to be sure, but the other extreme, where substance is also lost
in the wish to be brief, is no less unacceptable either. The ideal
decision is that which, with welcome economy of words, arrives
at the factual findings reaches the legal conclusions renders its
ruling and having done so ends.
VINTA MARITIME CO., INC. and ELKANO SHI Nhighly recommended and that his conduct and ability were rated
MANAGEMENT, INC., N%ery good N.!etitioners* allegation that such remar& and ratings
petitioners were gi%en to pri%ate respondent as an accommodation for
, futureemployment fails to persuade. (he 2ourt cannot consent to such
vs an accommodation, e%en if the allegation were true,as it is a blatant
. NATIONAL LA!ORRELATIONS COMMISSION and LEONIDES misrepresentation. t cannot e#culpate petitioners based on such
C. !ASCONCILLO, misrepresentation. hen petitionersissued the accommodation, they
respondents must ha%e &nown its possible repercussions
.FACTS:
9eonidesIasconsillo, pri%ate respondent, led a complaint with the !
hilippine O%erseas Cmployment 8dministration!OC8E for illegal
dismissal against 0inta aritime 2o. nc. and Cl&ano Ship
anagement, nc. petitioners alleged that9eonides was dismissed
for his gross negligence and incompetent performance as chief
engineer of the M0 Ioracay. (he !OC8 ruled that pri%ate
respondent was illegally dismissed. On appeal, the )92 aGrmed
the !OC8. 9i&ewise, the)92 denied the motion for reconsideration.
'ence, this petition.
Issue:
hether or not pri%ate respondent is illegally dismissed.
Held:
(he absence of a %alid cause for termination in this case is apparent.
-or an employee*s dismissal to be %alid, D1E thedismissal must be
for a %alid cause and D=E
t"e e#$l%&ee #ust 'e a(%)ded due $)%cess.
!etitioners allege thatpri%ate respondent was dismissed because of
his incompetence, enumerating incidents in proof thereof. 'owe%er,
thisis contradicted by pri%ate respondent*s seaman*s boo& which
states that his discharge was due to an emergencylea%e. oreo%er,
his alleged incompetence is belied by the remar&s made by
petitioners in the same boo& that pri%aterespondent*s ser%ices were ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
GR. NO. L-49711 November 7, 1979 CA after realizing that Gozon cannot affirm his own decision
2 remanded the case to the Minister of Natural
nd Division Aquino Resources.
FACTS: ISSUE/S:
Zambales Chromite Mining Corp., Inc. (ZCM, Inc.) sought to be Whether or not Gozon can review and validly affirm his earlier
declared the rightful and prior locators and possessors decision w/o disturbing due process?
of 69 mining claims in Zambales. ZCM filed their claims with then HELD:
Director of Mines Benjamin Gozon. ZCM, Inc., were Secretary Gozon cannot review his decision as Director of Mines. A
asserting their claim against the mining claims of Martinez and Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Pabilona. Director Gozon decided in favor of Martinez Resources reviewing his own decision as Director of Mines is a
and Pabilona and dismissed the claims of ZCM, Inc., ruling that mockery of administrative justice.
ZCM, Inc. did not discover any mineral nor located any RATIO:
mining claims in accordance with law. ZCM appealed the decision In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might
before the Secretary of Environment and Natural not turn out to be a farce the reviewing
Resources. During the pendency of the appeal, Director gozon was officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is
appointed Secretary of Environment and Natural under review; otherwise, there could be no different
Resources. Gozon in his capacity as Secretary affirmed his decision view or there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the
as Director of Mines and dismissed the appeal of reviewing officer would be a biased view;
ZCM, Inc. inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would
ZCM then appealed before the CFI of Zambales. The CFI affirmed not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of
the decision of Gozon. the case
RULING OF CFI:
The disqualification of a judge to review his own decision or ruling
(Sec. 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court) does not
apply to administrative bodies; that there is no provision in the
Mining Law, disqualifying the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources from deciding an appeal from a case which he
had decided as Director of Mines; that delicadeza
is not a ground for disqualification. ZCM appealed the case to the
CA.
RULING OF CA:
JOEY P. MARQUEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION, GR thousand rounds of bullets of different calibers that were grossly
Nos. 187912-14, 2011-01-31 overpriced from VMY Trading, a company not registered as an arms
and ammunitions... dealer with either the Firearms and Explosives
Facts: Division of the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI).
Through this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of Finding the transactions anomalous, the COA Special Audit Team
preliminary injunction,[1] petitioner Joey P. Marquez (Marquez) issued Notices of Disallowances for the overpriced ammunitions.
assails the 1] February 11, 2009 Resolution[2] of the 5th Division of Marquez and Caunan sought reconsideration of the findings of the
the Sandiganbayan (SB-5th Division) in Criminal Case Nos. 27903, team, but their plea was denied. Aggrieved, they elevated the matter
27904 and 27905; and its 2] May 20, 2009 to the COA... but their appeal was denied.

Resolution[3] denying his motion for reconsideration. At the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), in answer to the charges
filed against them, Marquez and Caunan filed their Joint Counter
I Affidavit[4] with the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation
Bureau of said office. In the said affidavit, the two... insisted on the
In the assailed issuances, the SB-5th Division denied Marquez's propriety of the transactions and raised the pendency of their appeal
Motion to Refer Prosecution's Evidence for Examination by the with the COA.
Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). Having found probable cause to indict them for violation of Section 3
(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, the OMB, through the Office of
From the records, it appears that as a result of the Report on the Audit the Special Prosecutor (OSP), filed three (3) informations[5] against
of Selected Transactions and Walis Ting-ting for the City of Marquez and Caunan. The cases were raffled... to the Fourth Division
Parañaque for the years 1996 to 1998, conducted by the Special Audit of the Sandiganbayan (SB-4th Division).
Team of the Commission on Audit (COA), several anomalies were...
discovered involving Marquez, then City Mayor and Chairman of the Before arraignment, on November 24, 2003, alleging discovery of the
Bids and Awards committee of Parañaque City; and Ofelia C. Caunan forged signatures, Marquez sought referral of the disbursement
(Caunan), Head of the General Services Office of said city. vouchers, purchase requests and authorization requests to the NBI
and the reinvestigation of the cases against him.[6] These were
It was found that, through personal canvass and without public denied by the OSP.
bidding, Marquez and Caunan secured the procurement of several
On May 20, 2008, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez recused
themselves from further participating in the cases. The cases were THAT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN - 5TH
then raffled to the SB-5th Division. DIVISION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
Thereafter, on July 4, 2008, Marquez filed the subject Motion to WHEN IT ISSUED ITS RESOLUTIONS RESPECTIVELY DATED
Refer Prosecution's Evidence for Examination by the Questioned FEBRUARY 11, 2009 AND MAY 20, 2009 DENYING THE
Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation. In his
motion, he again insisted that his purported signatures on the PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REFER PROSECUTION'S
vouchers were... forged. EVIDENCE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE QUESTIONED
DOCUMENTS SECTION OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF
By way of Comment/Opposition to the motion, the prosecution INVESTIGATION WHICH DENIAL IS IN VIOLATION OF HIS
argued that its documentary exhibits had already been formally RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND HIS TWIN
offered in January 2006 and had been duly admitted by the anti-graft CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
court. The prosecution added that, when confronted with the PROTECTION OF
questioned transactions... during the COA audit investigation,
Marquez never raised the defense of forgery. Instead, he insisted on LAW.
the propriety of the transactions. He did not claim forgery either
when he filed his Joint Counter-Affidavit with the OMB. Also, in his Ruling:
verified Motion for Reconsideration... dated May 29, 2003 and
Supplemental Motion dated July 1, 2003 filed with the COA, no WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 11, 2009
allegation of forgery was made. and May 20, 2009 Resolutions of the 5th Division of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 27903, 27904 and 27905 are
The prosecution pointed to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 5th Division of the
of Court[7] and posited that since Marquez alleged in his pleadings Sandiganbayan is hereby ordered to allow the petitioner Joey P.
that he had relied on the competence of his subordinates, there could Marquez to refer the evidence of the prosecution to the Questioned
be no "palpable mistake," thus, he was estopped... from alleging that Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation for
his signatures on the subject documents were forged. The prosecution examination as soon as possible and, after submission of... the results
accused Marquez of filing the motion merely to delay the to the court and proper proceedings, to act on the case with dispatch.
proceedings.[8]
Principles:
Issues:
One of the most vital and precious rights accorded to an accused by defense, the exercise by the Court of its certiorari jurisdiction is
the Constitution is due process, which includes a fair and impartial warranted as this amounts to a denial of due process.
trial and a reasonable opportunity to present one's defense. Under
Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, it is provided... that:

(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without

due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
public... trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been... duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable. (emphasis supplied)

In this connection, it is well settled that due process in criminal

proceedings requires that (a) the court or tribunal trying the case is
properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it; (b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the...
person of the accused; (c) that the accused is given an opportunity to
be heard; and (d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.

While the Constitution does not specify the nature of this opportunity,
by necessary implication, it means that the accused should be allowed
reasonable freedom to present his defense if the courts are to give
form and substance to this guaranty. Should the trial court fail to...
accord an accused reasonable opportunity to submit evidence in his