Case Digest_People of the Philippine Islands v Wong Cheng (alias Wong Chun) Facts: In an appeal, the Attorney-General urges

the revocation of the order of the Court sustaining the demurrer presented by the defendant to the information in which the appellee is accused of having illegally smoked opium, aboard the merchang vessel Changsa of English nationality while said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city. The demurrer alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court, which so held and dismissed the case. Issue: WON the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters Held: The order appealed from is revoked and the cause ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law, without special findings as to costs. Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not triable by or courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not being about in the said territory those effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is not considered a disturbance of the public order. Case Digest_ Jose Reyes v Ramon Bagatsing Facts: The Court is called upon to delineate the boundaries of the protected area of the cognate rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, against an alleged intrusion by respondent Mayor Ramon Bagatsing. Petitioner sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally. A petition based on the resolution adopted on the last day by the International Conference for General Disbarmament, World Peace and the Removal of All Foreign Military Bases held in Manila, would be presented to a representative of the Embassy or any of its personnel who may be there so that it may be delivered to the United States Ambassador. Issue: WON holding a peaceable assembly could be a danger to public peace and safety Held: The mandatory injunction prayed for is granted. It may be noted that the peaceful character of the peace march and rally was not marred by any untoward incident. So it has been in other assemblies held elsewhere. It is quite

reassuring such that both on the part of the national government and the citizens, reason and moderation have prevailed. That is as it should be. Case Digest_Dale Sanders v Hon. Regino Veridiano Facts: Petitioner Sanders was the special services director of the US Naval Station in Olongapo City. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base. Private respondent Rossi is an American citizen with permanent residence in the Philippines. They were both employed as gameroom attendants. Private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time. Their reaction was to protest this conversion and to institute grievance proceedings conformably to the pertinent rules and regulations of the US Department of Defense. Private respondent filed in CFI for damages against petitioners. Private respondents made it clear that the petitioners were being sued in their private or personal capacity. However, the petitioners argued that the acts complained of were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties and the court had no jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of state immunity. Issue: WON petitioners were performing their official duties when they did acts for which they have been sued for damages Held: Petition is granted. The private respondents must pursue their claim against the petitioners in accordance with the laws of the United States, of which they are all citizens and under whose jurisdiction the alleged offenses were committed. Even assuming that our own laws are applicable, the United States government has not decided to give its consent to be sued in our courts, which therefore has not acquired the competence to act on the said claim. Case Digest_Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department v National Labor Relations Commission Facts: Petitioner Lacanilao in his capacity as Chief of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of termination to private respondent informing him that due to the financial constraints being experienced by the department, his services shall be terminated at the close of office hours on May 15, 1986 and that he is entitled to separation benefits equivalent to 1 month of his basic salary for every year of service plus other benefits. Upon petitioner SEAFDEC-AQDs failure to pay private respondent his separation pay, the latter filed a complaint against petitioners for non-payment of separation benefits plus moral damages and attorneys fees. Petitioners alleged that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case because SEAFDEC-AQD is an international organization.

Issue: WON NLRC has no jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD because of its international personality Held: The questioned decision and resolution of the NLRC are reversed and set aside for having been rendered without jurisdiction. Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located. Case Digest_Pedro Syquia v Natividad Almeda Lopez Facts: Middle of the year of 1945, plaintiffs executed three lease contracts, one for each apartments, in favor of the United States of America. The apartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering officers of the US armed forces stationed in the Manila area. Under the theory that said leases terminated six months after September 2, 1945 when Japan surrendered. Plaintiffs requested the predecessors in office to renegotiate said leases, execute lease contract for a period of three years and to pay a reasonable rental higher. The predecessors refused to execute new leases. Not being in conformity with the continuance of the old leases because of the alleged comparatively low rentals being paid, plaintiffs formally requested Tillman to cancel said three leases and to release the apartment buildings. Further, acting upon a motion to dismiss filed through the Special Assistant of the Judge Advocate, Philippine Ryukus Command on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the defendants and over the subject matter of the action, because the real party in interest was the US Government and not the individual defendants named in the complaint. Issue: WON the court has no jurisdiction over the defendants Held: The real party defendant in interest is the Government of the United States of America, that any judgment for back or increased rentals or damages will have to be paid by the said US government. It is clear that the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The US Government has not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Case Digest_Wigberto Taada et al v Edgardo Angara Facts: The WTO requires the Philippines to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products. In the instant petition, it assails the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the

1987 Constitution to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos, to give preference to qualified Filipinos to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods. Issue: WON the Philippine Constitution prohibit Philippine participation in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization Held: The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Notwithstanding objections against possible limitations on national sovereignty, the WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Case Digest_Maria Jeanette Tecson v COMELEC Facts: FPJ filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President. Petitioner filed a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners. Issue: WON Fernando Poe Jr is a Filipino citizen or not Held: Petitions were dismissed. Fornier has utterly failed to substantiate his case before the Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunity given to the parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove whether or not there has been material misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC, must not only be material, but also deliberate and willful. While the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code. Case Digest_The Holy See v The Hon. Eriberto Rosario Jr, Facts: The petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6000 square meters, registered in the name of petitioner. The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. Domingo Cirilos Jr, acting as agent to the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private respondent. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Private respondent filed a complaint

for annulment of the sale of the three parcels of land, and specific performance and damages against Petitioner. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. Issue: Whether or not petitioner can claim for immunity from suit Held: Petition is granted. The privilege of sovereign immunity in this case was sufficiently established by the Memorandum and Certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As the department tasked with the conduct of the Philippines foreign relations, the Department of Foreign Affairs has formally intervened in this case and officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the RP exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this country. Case Digest_The United States v Adriano Guinto Facts: The defendants were charged with the crim of robo en cuadrilla. After hearing the evidence, it reached the conclusion that each of the defendants was guilty of the crime charged and sentenced each of them to be imprisoned for a period of nine years of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties of article 57 and to indemnify Pedro Polintan in the sum of P565 and Serafina Mercado in the sum of P5, and each to pay one-fifth part of the costs, and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provision of law. Issue: Whether or Not defendants were guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt Held: The sentence of the lower court is so fully supported by the evidence that we find no reason for changing or modifying the conclusions reached. It is to be noted, however, that the lower court imposed the penalty of presidio mayor with an indemnity, with the condition that they should suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law in case of insolvency. Case Digest_US v Look Chaw (alias Luk Chiu) Facts: First complaint filed against the defendant was that he carried, kept, possessed and had in his possession and control, 96 kilograms of opium and that he had been surprised in the act of selling, 1000 pesos worth prepared opium. According to the testimony of the internal revenue agent, the defendant stated that the opium seized in the vessel had been bought by him in Hongkong for the purpose of selling it, as contraband, in Mexico and Puerto de Vera Cruz; and that on the 15th the vessel arrived at Cebu, and on the same day he sold opium.

It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it came from Hongkong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and Cebu. The defense moved for a dismissal of the case, on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to try the same and the facts concerned did not constitute a crime. Issue: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case and the facts concerned constituted a crime Held: Although the mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in the Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the laws of the land, with respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime, only the Court established in that said place itself had competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty. Case Digest_World Health Organization v Hon. Benjamin Aquino Facts: An original action filed against COSAC officers for alleged violation of RA No. 4712 amending Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code directing the search and seizure of the dutiable items in said crates. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the Host Agreement executed between the Philippine Government and the WHO. Such diplomatic immunity carries with it, privileges and immunities, personal inviolability, inviolability of the officials properties, exemption from local jurisdiction, and exemption from taxation and customs duties. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to all privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys in accordance with international law Held: The writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for are granted. Petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, as confirmed by the Solicitor-General as the principal law officer of the Government. Such executive determination properly implemented should have normally constrained respondents officers themselves to obtain the quashal of the search warrant secured by them rather than oppose such quashal up to this Court, to the embarrassment of said department heads, if not of the Philippine Government itself vis a vis the petitioners.