BANCO FACTS:

ESPANOL

FILIPINO

VS.

PALANCA

Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco mortgaged various parcels of real property in Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino. Afterwards, Engracio returned to China and there he died on January 29, 1810 without returning again to the Philippines. The mortgagor then instituted foreclosure proceeding but since defendant is a non-resident, it was necessary to give notice by publication. The Clerk of Court was also directed to send copy of the summons to the defendants last known address, which is in Amoy, China. It is not shown whether the Clerk complied with this requirement. Nevertheless, after publication in a newspaper of the City of Manila, the cause proceeded and judgment by default was rendered. The decision was likewise published and afterwards sale by public auction was held with the bank as the highest bidder. On August 7, 1908, this sale was confirmed by the court. However, about seven years after the confirmation of this sale, a motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as administrator of the estate of the original defendant, wherein the applicant requested the court to set aside the order of default and the judgment, and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto. The basis of this application was that the order of default and the judgment rendered thereon were void because the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of the action. ISSUE:

Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter of the action Whether or not due process of law was observed

RULING: On Jurisdiction

The word jurisdiction is used in several different, though related, senses since it may have reference (1) to the authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind of relief, or it may refer to the power of the court over the parties, or (2) over the property which is the subject to the litigation. The sovereign authority which organizes a court determines the nature and extent of its

powers in general and thus fixes its competency or jurisdiction with reference to the actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant. How Jurisdiction is Acquired

Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his submission to its authority, or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person. Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. In the latter case the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may never be taken into actual custody at all. An illustration of the jurisdiction acquired by actual seizure is found in attachment proceedings, where the property is seized at the beginning of the action, or some subsequent stage of its progress, and held to abide the final event of the litigation. An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical control over the property assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world. In the terminology of American law the action to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a proceeding quasi in rem, by which is expressed the idea that while it is not strictly speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of that nature and is substantially such. The expression "action in rem" is, in its narrow application, used only with reference to certain proceedings in courts of admiralty wherein the property alone is treated as responsible for the claim or obligation upon which the proceedings are based. The action quasi rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstance that in the former an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. xxx

It is true that in proceedings of this character, if the defendant for whom publication is made appears, the action becomes as to him a personal action and is conducted as such. This, however, does not affect the proposition that where the defendant fails to appear the action is quasi in rem; and it should therefore be considered with reference to the principles governing actions in rem. On Due Process

xxx As applied to a judicial proceeding, however, it may be laid down with certainty that the requirement of due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present, namely; (1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Passing at once to the requisite that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard, we observe that in a foreclosure case some notification of the proceedings to the nonresident owner, prescribing the time within which appearance must be made, is everywhere recognized as essential. To answer this necessity the statutes generally provide for publication, and usually in addition thereto, for the mailing of notice to the defendant, if his residence is known. Though commonly called constructive, or substituted service of process in any true sense. It is merely a means provided by law whereby the owner may be admonished that his property is the subject of judicial proceedings and that it is incumbent upon him to take such steps as he sees fit to protect it. It will be observed that this mode of notification does not involve any absolute assurance that the absent owner shall thereby receive actual notice. The periodical containing the publication may never in fact come to his hands, and the chances that he should discover the notice may often be very slight. Even where notice is sent by mail the probability of his receiving it, though much increased, is dependent upon the correctness of the address to which it is forwarded as well as upon the regularity and security of the mail service. It will be noted, furthermore, that the provision of our law relative to the mailing of notice does not absolutely require the mailing of notice unconditionally and in every event, but only in the case where the defendant's residence is known. In the light of all these facts, it is evident that actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind is not, under the law, to be considered absolutely necessary.

The idea upon which the law proceeds in recognizing the efficacy of a means of notification which may fall short of actual notice is apparently this: Property is always assumed to be in the possession of its owner, in person or by agent; and he may be safely held, under certain conditions, to be affected with knowledge that proceedings have been instituted for its condemnation and sale. Did the failure of the clerk to send notice to defendants last known address constitute denial of due process? The observations which have just been made lead to the conclusion that the failure of the clerk to mail the notice, if in fact he did so fail in his duty, is not such an irregularity, as amounts to a denial of due process of law; and hence in our opinion that irregularity, if proved, would not avoid the judgment in this case. Notice was given by publication in a newspaper and this is the only form of notice which the law unconditionally requires. This in our opinion is all that was absolutely necessary to sustain the proceedings. It will be observed that in considering the effect of this irregularity, it makes a difference whether it be viewed as a question involving jurisdiction or as a question involving due process of law. In the matter of jurisdiction there can be no distinction between the much and the little. The court either has jurisdiction or it has not; and if the requirement as to the mailing of notice should be considered as a step antecedent to the acquiring of jurisdiction, there could be no escape from the conclusion that the failure to take that step was fatal to the validity of the judgment. In the application of the idea of due process of law, on the other hand, it is clearly unnecessary to be so rigorous. The jurisdiction being once established, all that due process of law thereafter requires is an opportunity for the defendant to be heard; and as publication was duly made in the newspaper, it would seem highly unreasonable to hold that failure to mail the notice was fatal. We think that in applying the requirement of due process of law, it is permissible to reflect upon the purposes of the provision which is supposed to have been violated and the principle underlying the exercise of judicial power in these proceedings. Judge in the light of these conceptions, we think that the provision of Act of Congress declaring that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law has not been infringe

MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: 1. On June 8, 1984, IMELDA MARCOS and JOSE DANS, as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Light Railway Transit Authority (LRTA) entered into a Lease Contract with the Philippine General Hospital Foundation (PGHFI) involving an LRTA property in Pasay City for P102,760.00 per month for 25 years; 2. On June 27,1984, the PGHFI subleased the said property for P734,000.00 per month to the Transnational Construction Corporation represented by one Ignacio Jumenez; 3. After petitioners husband was deposed as President of the Philippines, she and Dans were charged of alleged violation of Section 3 [g] of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan; 4. After trial , the First Division of the Sandiganbayan failed to comply with the legal requirement that all the 3 justices must be unanimous in its Decision because Justice Garchitorena and Justice Jose Balajadia voted for the conviction of both accused while Justice Narciso Atienza voted to acquit them; 5. Thereafter, Justice Garchitorena as Presiding Justice issued Administrative Order No. 288-93 constituting a Special Division of five and designating Justices Augusto Amores and Cipriano del Rosario; 6. On September 21, 1993, Justice Amores wrote Justice Garchitorena that he be given 15 days his Manifestation. On the same date, however, Justice Garchitorena dissolved the division of 5 allegedly because he and Justice Balajadia had agreed to the opinion of Justice del Rosario; 7. On September 24, 1993, a Decision was rendered convicting the petitioner and Dans of violation of Sec. 3 [g] of RA 3019; 8. On June 29, 1998, the Third Division of the Supreme Court by a vote of 3-2 affirmed the conviction of the petitioner but acquitted DANS; 9. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and at the same time prayed that her Motion be heard by the Supreme Court en banc claiming that her right to due process of law, both substantive and procedural, was violated:

a. as a result of the fact that she was convicted as a result of the alleged disparity of the rentals agreed upon with PGHFI and the subsequent sub-lease contract between PGHFI and Transnational Construction Corporation; and b. the First Division convicted her after Justice Garchitorena dissolved the Special Division of 5 after a lunch in a Quezon City restaurant where they agreed to convict her in one case and acquit her in her other cases. The said meeting was attended by another justice who is not a member of the First Division or the Special Division in violation of the Rules of the Sandiganbayan which requires that sessions of the court shall be done only in its principal office in Manila and that only justices belonging to the division should join the deliberations. Held: The petitioner is hereby acquitted. 1. The great disparity between the rental price of the lease agreement signed by the petitioner (P102,760.00 per month) and the sub-lease rental (P734,000.00 per month) does not necessarily render the monthly rate of P102,760.00 manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government in the absence of any evidence using rentals of adjacent properties showing that the rentals in the property subject of the lease agreement is indeed very low. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION REGARDING THE RENTAL RATE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner reasonable doubt. 2. The court notes likewise the bias and prejudice of Presiding Justice Garchitorena against the petitioner as shown by his leading, misleading and baseless hypothetical questions of said justice to RAMON F. CUERVO, witness for the petitioner. Said justice asked 179 questions to the witness as against the prosecutor who cross-examined the witness which was 73. Said number of questions could no longer be described as clarificatory questions. Another ground therefore for the acquittal of the petitioner is that she was denied IMPARTIAL TRIAL before the Sandiganbayan. This is one reason why the case could no longer be remanded to the Sandiganbayan especially so that the other Sandiganbayan Justices in the Special Division of 5 have retired. There is therefore no compelling reason why the case should still be remanded to the lower court when all the evidence are already with the Supreme Court.

RIVERA VS. CSC

Facts: Petitioner was the manager of Corporate Banking Unit of LBP and was charged with dishonesty, receiving for personal use of fee, gift or other valuable thing in the course of official duties, committing acts punishable under the Anti-Graft Laws, and pursuit of private business vocation or profession without permission required by CSC. Rivera allegedly told Perez that he would facilitate the processing, approval and release of his loan if he would be given 10% commission. Rivera was further charged having served and acted, without prior authority required by CSC, as the personal consultant of Lao and consultant in various companies where Lao had investments. LBP held Rivers guilty of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service in accepting employment from a client of the bank. The penalty of forced resignation, without separation benefits and gratuities, was thereupon imposed on Rivera. Issue: Whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in composing the capital penalty of dismissal on the basis of unsubstantiated finding and conclusions Ruling: Given the circumstances in the case at bench, it should have behooved Commissioner Gaminde to inhibit herself totally from any participation in resolving Riveras appeal to CSC to give full meaning and consequence to a fundamental aspect of due process. CSC resolution is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to CSC for the resolution, sans the participation of CSC Commissioner Gaminde, as she was the Board Chairman of MSPB whose ruling is thus appealed.

People v. Medenilla [GR 131638-39, 26 March 2001]

First Division, Kapunan (J) : 4 concur

Facts:

On 16 April 1996, Loreto Medenilla y Doria was caught for illegal possession and unlawfully selling 5.08g of shabu (Criminal Case 3618-D), was in unlawful possession of 4 transparent plastic bags of shabu weighing 200.45g (Criminal Case 3619-D) in Mandaluyong City. Versions of facts leading to the arrest are conflicting; the prosecution alleging buy-bust operations, while defense claim illegal arrest, search and seizure. Arraigned on 25 June 1996, Medenilla pleaded not guilty. The judge therein, for the purpose of clarification, propounded a question upon a witness during the trial. On 26 November 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 262) found Medenilla, in Criminal Cases 3618-D and 3619-D, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). Issue: Whether judges are allowed to asked clarificatory questions. Held: A single noted instance of questioning cannot justify a claim that the trial judge was biased. The Court have exhaustively examined the transcript of stenographic notes and determined that the trial judge was more than equitable in presiding over the hearings of this case. Moreover, a judge is not prohibited from propounding clarificatory questions on a witness if the purpose of which is to arrive at a proper and just determination of the case. The trial judge must be accorded a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts to make the record speak the truth. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party.

CRUZ and PAITIM vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION [G.R. No. 144464, November 22, 2001] KAPUNAN, J: FACTS: On September 9, 1994 it was discovered by the Civil Service Commission that Paitim, Municipal Treasurer of Bulacan took the non-professional examination for Cruz after the latter had previously failed in the said examination three times. The CSC found after a fact finding investigation that a prima facie case exists against you for DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE. The petitioners filed their Answer to the charge entering a general denial of the material averments of the "Formal Charge." They also declared that they were electing a formal investigation on the matter. The petitioners subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss averring that if the investigation will continue, they will be deprived of their right to due process because the Civil Service Commission was the complainant, the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the same time. On November 16, 1995, Dulce J. Cochon issued an "Investigation Report and Recommendation" finding the Petitioners guilty of "Dishonesty" and ordering their dismissal from the government service. Petitioners maintain that the CSC did not have original jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative case. Allegedly, in accordance with Section 47(1), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987, the CSC is vested with appellate jurisdiction only in all administrative cases where the penalty imposed is removal or dismissal from the office and where the complaint was filed by a private citizen against the government employee. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners right to due process was violated when the CSC acted as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and jugde all at the same time. HELD: NO. The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that it could not be an impartial judge. As an administrative body, its decision was based on substantial findings. Factual findings of administrative bodies, being considered experts in their field, are

David vs. Aquilizan, 96 Scra 707

FACTS: David has a large parcel of land in Polomolok, Cotabato. He let Felomeno Jugar and Ricardo Jugar tend and caretake separate portions of his land in 1971. The land is estimated to be yielding 60-70 cavans of corn cobs an dthe share agreed upon is 50-50. In 1973, David withdrew the land from the brothers and has not allowed them to go back there. The brothers prayed for reinstatement but David refused to do so. David denied that the brothers were his tenants. He said that Ricardo was his tractor driver before but he resigned to take care of his dad and to work for DOLE. Fewlomeno on the other hand surrendered the portion of the land he was tending to continue his faith healing. J Aquilizan handled the case filed by the brothers against David and after three months he rendered a decision in favor of the brothers without any hearing. David averred he was denied due process. J Aquilizan admitted that there was indeed no hearing conducted but he said the decision has already become final and executory as the period for appeal has already lapsed. ISSUE: Whether or not David is entitled to an appeal. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of David. A decision rendered without a hearing is null and void and may be attacked directly or collaterally. The decision is null and void for want of due process. And it has been held that a final and executory judgment may be set aside with a view to the renewal of the litigation when the judgment is void for lack of due process of law. In legal contemplation, it is as if no judgment has been rendered at all.

ANIAG VS. COMELEC [237 SCRA 194; G.R. NO. 104961; 7 OCT 1994]

Facts: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2323, Gun Ban, promulgating rules and regulations on bearing, carrying and transporting of firearm or other deadly weapons on security personnel or bodyguards, on bearing arms by members of security agencies or police organizations, and organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period. COMELEC also issued Resolution No. 2327 providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, organizing special strike forces, and establishing spot checkpoints. Pursuant to the Gun Ban, Mr. Serrapio Taccad, Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, wrote petitioner for the return of the two firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives. Petitioner then instructed his driver, Arellano, to pick up the firearms from petitioners house and return them to Congress. The PNP set up a checkpoint. When the car driven by Arellano approached the checkpoint, the PNP searched the car and found the firearms. Arellano was apprehended and detained. He then explained the order of petitioner. Petitioner also explained that Arellano was only complying with the firearms ban, and that he was not a security officer or a bodyguard. Later, COMELEC issued Resolution No.92-0829 directing the filing of information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code, and for petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified from running for an elective position. Petitioner then questions the constitutionality of Resolution No. 2327. He argues that gunrunning, using or transporting firearms or similar weapons and other acts mentioned in the resolution are not within the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. Thus, according to petitioner, Resolution No. 2327 is unconstitutional. The issue on the disqualification of petitioner from running in the elections was rendered moot when he lost his bid for a seat in Congress in the elections. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner can be validly prosecuted for instructing his driver to return the firearms issued to him on the basis of the evidence gathered from the warrant less search of his car Held: A valid search must be authorized by a search warrant issued by an appropriate authority. However, a warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. In the case at bar, the guns were not tucked in Arellanos waist nor placed within his reach, as they were neatly packed in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car. Given these circumstances, the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as

the package without violating the constitutional injunction. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano, the search could not have been valid. Consequently, the firearms obtained from the warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. It was also shown in the facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up the checkpoint. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. He was not informed by the City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation. Such constituted a violation of his right to due process. Hence, it cannot be contended that petitioner was fully given the opportunity to meet the accusation against him as he was not informed that he was himself a respondent in the case. Thus, the warrantless search conducted by the PNP is declared illegal and the firearms seized during the search cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding against the petitioner. Resolution No. 92-0829 is unconstitutional, and therefore, set aside.

EASTERN BROADCASTING VS. DANS

Facts: A petition was filed to reopen the Radio Station DYRE. DYRE was summarily closed on grounds of national security. The radio station was allegedly used to incite people to sedition. Petitioner, DYRE contends that they were denied due process. There was no hearing to establish factual evidence for the closure. Furthermore, the closure of the radio station violates freedom of expression. Before the court could even promulgate a decision upon the Issue raised, Petitioner, through its president Mr. Rene Espina, filed a motion to withdraw the petition. The rights of the station were sold to a new owner, Manuel Pastrana; who is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Despite the case becoming moot and academic, (because there are no longerinterested parties, thus the dismissal of the case) the Supreme Court still finds that there is need to pass a RESOLUTION for the guidance of inferior courts and administrative tribunals in matters as this case. Issue: Whether or not due process was exercised in the case of DYRE. Whether or not the closure of DYRE is a violation of the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Expression. Held: The court finds that the closure of the Radio Station in 1980 as null and void. The absence of a hearing is a violation of Constitutional Rights. The primary requirements in administrative proceedings are laid down in the case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relation (69 Phil.635). The Ang Tibay Doctrine should be followed before any broadcast station may be closed. The Ang Tibay Doctrine provides the following requirements: (1) The right to hearing, includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence presented. (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented (3) The decision must have something to support itself. (4) Evidence must be substantial (reasonable evidence that is adequate to support conclusion) (5) Decision must be based on the evidence presented at hearing (6) The tribunal body must act on its own independent consideration of law and facts and not simply accept subordinates views (7) Court must render decision in such a manner that the proceeding can know the various issued involved and reasons for decisions rendered.

The court stresses that while there is no controlling and precise definition of Due Process, it gives an unavoidable standard that government actions must conform in order that deprivation of life,liberty and property is valid. The closure of the radio station is like wise a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. The court stresses that all forms of media, whether print or broadcast are entitled to this constitutional right. Although the government still has the right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to violently overthrow it. The test for the limitation of freedom of expression is the clear and present danger rule. If in the circumstances that the media is used in such nature as to create this danger that will bring in such evils, then the law has the right to prevent it. However, Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or signal a start of widespread uprising. The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. The people continues to have the right to be informed on public affairs and broadcast media continues to have the pervasive influence to the people being the most accessible form of media. Therefore, broadcast stations deserve the the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution.

BAUTISTA VS. CA

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72307 dated February 17, 2003.1[1] The facts are not in dispute. On August 12, 1999, petitioners Natividad E. Bautista, Clemente E. Bautista and Socorro L. Angeles filed a complaint against respondent Manila Papermills, International, Inc., before the RTC of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22, docketed as Civil Case No. 1948-99, for quieting of title.2[2] This complaint was later amended to implead respondents Adelfa Properties, Inc. and the spouses Rodolfo and Nelly Javellana.3[3] Petitioners alleged in their Amended Complaint that they have been in actual and uninterrupted possession of Lot 5753 of the Imus Estate; that they discovered that the land was covered by a reconstituted title in the name of respondents; and that the said title and the derivatives thereof are spurious. Hence, they prayed that they be declared the absolute owners of the land in dispute. After several delays spanning more than two years, the case was finally set for trial. However, on May 2, 2002, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement to cancel the hearing on the ground that Atty. Michael Macaraeg, the lawyer assigned to the case was in the United States attending to an important matter. The trial court denied petitioners motion for postponement and considered them as having waived the presentation of their evidence. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 72307. On February 17, 2003, the Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition for certiorari and dismissed the same. Hence, this petition on the following assignment of errors: 1. The respondent Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the partiality and prejudice of the trial court against the petitioners since the inception of the case thereby depriving the petitioners of their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process (Padua vs. Ericta, 161 SCRA 458);

Rollo, p. 28. Penned by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by Justices Sergio L. Pestao and Amelita G. Tolentino.
1[1] 2[2]

CA Rollo, p. 24. Rollo, p. 40.

3[3]

2. As a consequence, the respondent appellate court denied the petitioners of their chance to present evidence even after satisfactorily explaining the failure of petitioners counsel to attend the scheduled hearing the due process guarantee was violated (Continental Leaf Tobacco [Phil.]), Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 140 SCRA 269).4[4] Petitioners claim that the arbitrary acts of the trial court have resulted in the denial of their right to due process, and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged Orders. Petitioners further aver that the trial judge displayed noticeable partiality and prejudice in dealing with their case, by granting several continuances to respondents while denying petitioners Urgent Motion for Postponement.5[5] They cite four instances wherein respondents were granted extensions to file responsive pleadings and two instances wherein respondents requests for postponement were similarly granted.6[6] An extension to file a responsive pleading is clearly different from a request for a postponement of trial. The former is less likely to waste the time of the court, the litigants, their counsels and witnesses who may have already prepared for the trial and traveled to the courthouse to attend the hearing. More specifically, out of the two postponements prayed for by respondents, one was for the cancellation of a court date unilaterally requested by petitioners which has not been approved by the trial court. 7[7] On the other hand, the trial court, in its Order dated July 2, 2002, clearly stated that petitioners motions for postponement on three previous occasions were granted.8[8] This was never refuted by petitioners. Petitioners last motion for postponement was, however, denied because it was filed on the very date of the hearing sought to be rescheduled.9[9] In Gohu v. Spouses Gohu,10[10] we ruled that, far from being tainted with bias and prejudice, an order declaring a party to have waived the right to present evidence for performing dilatory actions upholds the courts duty to ensure that trial proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on the part of one party.11[11]

4[4]

Id., p. 17. Rollo, p. 19. Id., p. 11. Id., p. 66. Id. Id., p. 59. G.R. No. 128230, 13 October 2000, 343 SCRA 114. Id.

5[5]

6[6]

7[7]

8[8]

9[9]

10[10]

11[11]

Petitioners contention that they were denied due process is not well- taken. Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.12[12] Moreover, the grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right. It is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Action thereon will not be disturbed by appellate courts, in the absence of clear and manifest abuse of discretion resulting in a denial of substantial justice.13[13] In other words, we cannot make a finding of grave abuse of discretion simply because a court decides to proceed with the trial of a case rather than postpone the hearing to another day, because of the absence of a party. That the absence of a party during trial constitutes a waiver of his right to present evidence and cross-examine the opponents witnesses is firmly supported by jurisprudence. To constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the refusal of the court to postpone the hearing must be characterized by arbitrariness or capriciousness.14[14] After a careful review of the evidence on record, we find that the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court in denying petitioners motion for postponement and declaring them as having waived their right to present evidence. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72307 which dismissed the special civil action for certiorari, is AFFIRMED.

MARIVELES SHIPYARD VS. CA Facts:

Tiomico v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122539, 4 March 1999, 304 SCRA 216. (Citations omitted)
12[12] 13[13]

Id. Adorable v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119466, 25 November 1999, 319 SCRA 200, 209.

14[14]

Sometime on October 1993, Mariveles Shipyard Corporation engaged the services of Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. to render security services at its premises. Pursuant to their agreement, Longest Force deployed its security guards, the private respondents herein, at the petitioners shipyard in Mariveles, Bataan. According to petitioner, it religiously complied with the terms of the security contract with Longest Force, promptly paying its bills and the contract rates of the latter. However, it found the services being rendered by the assigned guards unsatisfactory and inadequate, causing it to terminate its contract with Longest Force on April 1995. Longest Force, in turn, terminated the employment of the security guards it had deployed at petitioners shipyard. On September 1996, private respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages pursuant to the PNPSOSIA-PADPAO rates, non-payment of overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and attorneys fees, against both Longest Force and petitioner, before the Labor Arbiter. The case sought the guards reinstatement with full back wages and without loss of seniority rights. Longest Force admitted that it employed private respondents and assigned them as security guards at the premises of petitioner rendering a 12 hours duty per shift for the said period. It likewise admitted its liability as to the non-payment of the alleged wage differential in the total amount of P2,618,025 but passed on the liability to petitioner The petitioner denied any liability on account of the alleged illegal dismissal, stressing that no employer-employee relationship existed between it and the security guards. It further pointed out that it would be the height of injustice to make it liable again for monetary claims which it had already paid. Anent the cross-claim filed by Longest Force against it, petitioner prayed that it be dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner averred that Longest Force had benefited from the contract; it was now estopped from questioning said agreement on the ground that it had made a bad deal. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment that Longest Force and Mariveles Shipping be jointly and severally liable to pay the money claims of the complainants. Petitioner appealed the foregoing to the NLRC. The labor tribunal, affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the NLRC. The petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the NLRC judgment for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition and dismissed it outright. Issue:

WON Longest Force should be held solely and ultimately liable. Held: Petitioners liability is joint and several with that of Longest Force, pursuant to Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code which provide as follows: ART. 106. CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR. Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the formers work, the employees of the contractor and of the latters subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code. In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him. ART. 107. INDIRECT EMPLOYER. The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project. ART. 109. SOLIDARY LIABILITY . The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. For purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, they shall be considered as direct employers. In this case, when petitioner contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security agency that hired private respondents to work as guards for the shipyard corporation, petitioner became an indirect employer of private respondents pursuant to Article 107 abovecited. Following Article 106, when the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards, the corporation as principal becomes jointly and severally liable for the guards wages. This is mandated by the Labor Code to ensure compliance with its provisions, including payment of statutory minimum wage. The security agency is held liable by virtue of its status as direct employer, while the corporation is deemed the indirect employer of the guards for the purpose of paying their wages in the event of failure of the agency to pay them. This statutory scheme gives the workers the ample protection consonant with labor and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner cannot evade its liability by claiming that it had religiously paid the compensation of guards as stipulated under the contract with the security agency. Labor standards are enacted by the legislature to alleviate the

plight of workers whose wages barely meet the spiraling costs of their basic needs. Labor laws are considered written in every contract. Stipulations in violation thereof are considered null. Similarly, legislated wage increases are deemed amendments to the contract. Thus, employers cannot hide behind their contracts in order to evade their (or their contractors or subcontractors) liability for noncompliance with the statutory minimum wage. However, the court emphasizes that the solidary liability of petitioner with that of Longest Force does not preclude the application of the Civil Code provision on the right of reimbursement from his co-debtor by the one who paid. As held in Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC , the joint and several liability imposed on petitioner is without prejudice to a claim for reimbursement by petitioner against the security agency for such amounts as petitioner may have to pay to complainants, the private respondents herein. The security agency may not seek exculpation by claiming that the principals payments to it were inadequate for the guards lawful compensation. As an employer, the security agency is charged with knowledge of labor laws; and the adequacy of the compensation that it demands for contractual services is its principal concern and not any others.

Suntay v. People [GR L-9430, 29 June 1957] Facts:

On 26 June 1954, Dr. Antonio Nubla, father of Alicia Nubla, a minor of 16 years, filed a verified complaint against Emilio Suntay in the Office of the City Attorney of Quezon City, alleging that on or about 21 June 21954, the accused took Alicia Nubla from St. Paul's College in Quezon City with lewd design and took her to somewhere near the University of the Philippines (UP) compound in Diliman and was then able to have carnal knowledge of her. On 15 December 1954, after an investigation, an Assistant City Attorney recommended to the City Attorney of Quezon City that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. On 23 December 1954 attorney for the complainant addressed a letter to the City Attorney of Quezon City wherein he took exception to the recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney referred to and urged that a complaint for seduction be filed against Suntay. On 10 January 1955, Suntay applied for and was granted a passport by the Department of Foreign Affairs (5981 [A39184]). On 20 January 1955, Suntay left the Philippines for San Francisco, California, where he is at present enrolled in school. On 31 January 1955, Alicia Nubla subscribed and swore to a complaint charging Suntay with seduction which was filed, in the Court of First Instance (CFI) Quezon City, after preliminary investigation had been conducted (Criminal case Q1596). On 9 February 1955 the private prosecutor filed a motion praying the Court to issue an order "directing such government agencies as may be concerned, particularly the National Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of having the accused brought back to the Philippines so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law." On 10 February 1955 the Court granted the motion. On 7 March 1955 the Secretary cabled the Ambassador to the United States instructing him to order the Consul General in San Francisco to cancel the passport issued to Suntay and to compel him to return to the Philippines to answer the criminal charges against him. However, this order was not implemented or carried out in view of the commencement of this proceedings in order that the issues raised may be judicially resolved. On 5 July 1955, Suntays counsel wrote to the Secretary requesting that the action taken by him be reconsidered, and filed in the criminal case a motion praying that the Court reconsider its order of 10 February 1955. On 7 July 1955, the Secretary denied counsel's request and on 15 July 1955 the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. Suntay filed the petition for a writ of certiorari. Issue: Whether Suntay should be accorded notice and hearing before his passport may be cancelled. Held: Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport; lack of such hearing does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution; and the exercise of

the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the absence of such hearing. If hearing should always be held in order to comply with the due process of law clause of the Constitution, then a writ of preliminary injunction issued ex parte would be violative of the said clause. Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful. But where the holder of a passport is facing a criminal charge in our courts and left the country to evade criminal prosecution, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of his discretion (Section 25, EO 1, S. 1946, 42 OG 1400) to revoke a passport already issued, cannot be held to have acted whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing and cancelling such passport. Suntays suddenly leaving the country in such convenient time, can reasonably be interpreted to mean as a deliberate attempt on his part to flee from justice,and, therefore, he cannot now be heard to complain if the strong arm of the law should join together to bring him back to justice.

CO VS. BARBERS Petitioner Governor Josie Castillo-Co of Quirino, through this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary

injunction, seeks to nullify the Order of the Deputy Ombudsman directing her preventive suspension. On 27 June 1997, Quirino Congressman Junie Cua filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Governor Castillo-Co and Provincial Engineer Virgilio Ringor. Congressman Cua alleged that in the course of its investigation in aid of legislation, the House of Representative Committee on Good Government chaired by him uncovered irregularities in the purchase of heavy equipment by the Governor and the Provincial Engineer. Congressman Cua charged that the equipment purchased was "reconditioned" instead of "brand new" as required by resolutions of the province's Sanggunian authorizing such purchase. Other irregularities claimed to have been committed included overpricing, lack of public bidding, lack of inspection, advance payment prior to delivery in violation of Section 338 of the Local Government Code, and an attempt to cover up such irregularities. Congressman Cua thus accused Governor Castillo-Co and Provincial Engineer Ringor of violating Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, 1 as amended, and Articles 213 2 and 217 3 of the Revised Penal Code. In an Order 4 dated 4 July 1997, that is, a week after the complaint was filed, Governor Castillo-Co and Provincial Engineer Ringor were placed under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months. Said order was signed by Emilio A. Gonzales, III, Director, and approved by Jesus Guerrero, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Governor Castillo-Co and Provincial Engineer Ringor thereafter filed separate motions for reconsideration. Both motions were denied in a "Joint Order" 5 dated 1 August 1997 signed by Director Gonzales and approved by Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero. On 12 August 1997, Governor Castillo-Co filed the present petition. Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion upon the Deputy Ombudsman for issuing the order of preventive suspension against her. As may be deduced from the petition, the grounds invoked in support thereof are: (1) The Deputy Ombudsman is not authorized to sign the order of preventive suspension. (2) The issuance of such order was hasty and selective, and deprived petitioner of due process, and (3) The conditions required to sustain petitioner's preventive suspension have not been met and that, at any rate, the duration thereof is excessive. In a Resolution dated 26 August 1997, 6 this Court resolved, among others, to grant petitioner's prayers for a temporary restraining order. The petition has no merit.

I Petitioner claims that under Republic Act No. 7975, 7 only the Ombudsman has the authority to sign the order placing officials with a 27 salary grade or above, like petitioner-governor, under preventive suspension. 8 In this case, the suspension order was neither signed nor approved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. Rather, said order was signed by Director Emilio Gonzales III and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Jesus Guerrero. There is nothing in RA 7975, however, that would remotely suggest that only the Ombudsman, and not his Deputy, may sign an order preventively suspending officials occupying positions classified as grade 27 or above. On the other hand, Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 9 provides: Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong. and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or gross misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty; or (b) the charge would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided. (Emphasis supplied). Similarly, Section 9, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of Ombudsman 10 provides: Sec. 9. Preventive suspension. Pending investigation, the respondent may be preventively suspended without pay for a period of not more than six (6) months, if, in the judgment of the Ombudsman or his proper deputy, the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employees involves dishonestly, oppression or gross misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty, (b) the charge would warrant removal from the service, or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. If the administrative investigation is not terminated within the period the respondent is suspended, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated unless the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence or any cause attributable to the respondent, in which case the

period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension. (Emphasis supplied.) Under these provisions, there cannot be any doubt that the Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend an officer or employee, where appropriate, as indicated by the word "or" between the "Ombudsman" and "his Deputy." The word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from each of the other things enumerated. 11 The law does not require that only the Ombudsman himself may sign the order suspension. II Petitioner next questions the manner by which the suspension order was issued. She claims that she was denied due process because she was not afforded the opportunity to controvert the evidence against her before the order of preventive suspension was issued. 12 A preventive suspension, however, can be decreed on an official under investigation after charges are brought and even before the charges are heard under investigation after charges are brought and even before the charges are heard since the same is not in the nature of a penalty, 13 but merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. Thus, in Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 14 we quoted with favor our pronouncement in Nera vs. Garcia: 15 In connection with the suspension of petitioner before he could file his answer to the administrative complaint, suffice it to say that the suspension was not a punishment or penalty for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only as a preventive measure. Suspension as a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. If after such investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilty of facts warranting his removal, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the charges against him are heard and be given an opportunity to prove his innocence. The fact that the said order was issued seven days after the complaint was filed did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The immediate issuance of such order is required in order to prevent the subject of the suspension from committing further irregularities. Such prompt action, moreover, is in consonance with Section 15 of RA 6770 which exhorts the Ombudsman to: . . . give priority to complaints filed against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving large sums of money and/or properties. We do not give much credence to petitioner's suggestions of a malicious conspiracy between the Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero and Congressman Cua, reputedly petitioner's political adversary, to harass her. The Deputy Ombudsman and the

Congressman, being public officials, enjoy the presumption of regularity of performance of dutes. Such presumption can be overcome only by strong and convincing evidence. 16 No such evidence exists in this case. III Contrary to petitioner's contention, the conditions required to sustain her preventive suspension have been met in this case. These conditions are: (1) That the evidence of guilt is strong; and (2) That any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. 17 The first requisite rests upon the determination of the disciplining authority, the Office of the Ombudsman in this case: As held in Buenaseda v. Flavier, however, whether the evidence of guilt is strong is left to the determination of the Ombudsman by taking into account the evidence before him. A preliminary hearing as in bail petitions in cases involving capital offenses is not required. In rejecting a similar argument as that made argument as that made by petitioner in this case, this Court said in that case. The import of the Nera decision is that the disciplining authority is given the discretion to decide when the evidence of guilt is strong. This fact is bolstered by Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which expressly left such determination of guilt to the "Judgment" of the Ombudsman on the basis of the administrative complaint . . . 18 We find no reason to disturb such determination in this case.

All the circumstances enumerated in the second requisite are likewise present
Petitioner is charged with, among others, fraud against the public treasury and malversation, offenses indubitably involving dishonesty and grave misconduct. These charges, if proven true, also constitute grounds for her removal upon order of the proper court. Section 60(c) of the Local Government Code states. Sec. 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions. An elective official ma be disciplined suspended or removed from office on any of the following grounds: xxx xxx xxx,

c) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or an offense punishable by at least prision mayor. . . . (Emphasis supplied). Petitioner's high position likewise gives her access to public records and the cloud to influence possible witness. Her continued stay in office may thus prejudice the prosecution of the case filed against her. It is immaterial that, as petitioner contends, no evidence has been adduced to prove that petitioner may influence possible witnesses or may tamper with the public records. It is sufficient that there exists such a possibility. Finally, the duration of petitioner's suspension is not excessive. Petitioner's suspension for six (6) months is within the limits prescribed by Section 24 of R.A. 6770. The length of the period of suspension within such limits, like the evaluation of the strength of the evidence, lies in the discretion of the Ombudsman. WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court per its Resolution dated 26 August 1997 is hereby LIFTED with immediate effect. SO ORDERED.

SANTIAGO VS VASQUEZ Facts: An information was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The order of arrest was issued with bail for release

fixed at Php.15,000 so she filed a motion for acceptance of cash bail bond. On the same day the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution authorizing the petitioner to post cash bond which the later filed in the amount of Php.15, 000. Her arraignment was set, but petitioner asked for the cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed provisional release on recognizance. The Sandiganbayan deferred it. The Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order against petitioner, by reason of the announcement she made that she would be leaving for the U.S. to accept a fellowship a Harvard. In the instant motion she submitted before the S.C. she argues that her right to travel is impaired. Issue: Whether or Not the petitioners right to travel is impaired. Held: The petitioner does not deny and as a matter of fact even made a public statement, that she he every intension of leaving the country to pursue higher studies abroad. The court upholds the course of action of the Sandiganbayan in taking judicial notice of such fact of petitioners pal to go abroad and in thereafter issuing a sua sponte the hold departure order is but an exercise of respondent courts inherent power to preserve and to maintain effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. Also, the petitioner assumed obligations, when she posted bail bond. She holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and process of eth court. She may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. (Manotoc v. C.A.)

MEJIA VS. PAMARAN Facts: 6 ejectment cases were filed separately in the City Court of Manila by Eusebio Lu against Feliciano F. Endangan, Josefina Meimban, Teodorico Bontia, Rolando Antillon,

Jose Mabalot and Vicente Villamor. All cases were decided by the City Court of Manila against Endangan, et. al., all of whom appealed in due time to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, where the cases were raffled to Branch XXVI, presided over by the Honorable Jose P. Alejandro (Civil Case 122794 to 122799). On 12 August 1979, Endangan, Bontia, Antillon, Mabalot, and Villamor entered into a compromise agreement with Lu whereby the Endangan, et. al. individually received from Lu the sum of P5,000 in consideration of which Endangan, et. al. agreed to vacate the premises in question and remove their houses therefrom within 60 days from the date of the execution of the agreement, failing which the appellee shall have the authority to demolish Endangan, et. al.'s houses with costs thereof chargeable against them. The compromise agreement was submitted to the court. Josefina Meimban did not join her co-defendants in entering into the compromise agreement. Up to that stage of the cases, the counsel of record of the defendants was Atty. S. G. Doron. On 22 August 1979, Atty. Modesto R. Espano of the Citizens Legal Assistant Office (CLAO), wrote Atty. Doron to inform him that Mrs. Meimban has sought the assistance of the CLAO regarding her case, and asked that the records of the case be sent to him. As a consequence, Atty. Doron filed on 30 August 1979 his motion to withdraw appearance as counsel for Meimban in Civil Case 122795. While Endangan, Bontia, Antillon, Mabalot and Villamor, have decided to settle with Lu through compromise agreement that they signed, Meimban resolved to prosecute her appeal in her own case, Civil Case 122795. When Meimban followed up her case in Branch XXVI of the CFI of Manila and had occasion to talk to Danilo Buenaventura of that Branch who told her that her case was already submitted for decision. She sought assistance from the CLAO where she was instructed by Atty. Espano to find out the real status of the case. She returned to the court sometime in July 1979 and that was when she first came to know Atty. Aurora Mejia who told her that the case has not yet been decided because there was still one party who has not signed the compromise agreement prepared by Atty. Doron. Atty. Mejia also remarked that she was surprised why rich people were helping in that case, like a certain Atty. Lu, a brother of Eusebio Lu, who has been approaching the presiding judge; and then told her she would help them provided they give P1,000 each for a gift to the Judge, to which she replied she would broach the matter to her companions. From the court, she went to Atty. Modesto Espano and told the lawyer the case was not yet submitted. Atty. Espano instructed her to get her papers from Atty. Doron, which she did. Thereafter, she told Pilar Bautista, daughter of Jose Mabalot, and Gloria Antonio, daughter of Vicente Villamor, about the help offered by Atty. Mejia. The two said they would think it over as they had already signed something. When she went to the court to deposit her rentals Atty. Mejia asked her if her companions were agreeable to the suggestion and she replied she had already told them and that they would consider the matter. On 20 November 1979, Sylvia Dizon y Resurreccion who loaned Meimban P500 accompanied the latter to the court. She was seated at the corridor near the door of Atty. Mejia's office which was partially open, and she saw Meimban handed an envelope to Atty. Mejia who put it inside her desk drawer. On 7 December 1979, the date set for the hearing of the motion to withdraw the compromise and to file memoranda filed by Pilar Bautista and Gloria Antonio in behalf of their fathers, Atty.

Mejia approached Meimban and said no oppositor might arrive, and asked her if Bautista had brought 1/2 of the P1,000.00. Bautista placed P600 in an envelope and the two of them, Bautista and Meimban, went to Atty. Mejia's office. Bautista handed the envelope containing the money to Atty. Mejia who received it. On 3 September 1980, Atty. Mejia attempted to bribe the Tanodbayan Investigator (Christina Corall-Paterno), through intricate gold chain with a pendant hearing an inscription of letter "C," (which the investigator returned through an employee, Dante Ramos). Corall-Paterno investigated the complaints of Josefina Meimban and Pilar Bautista against Atty. Aurora Mejia y Rodriguez for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On 23 April 1981, the Sandiganbayan, in Criminal Case 1988, found Aurora Mejia y Rodriguez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph (b), Section 3 of RA 3019 and sentenced her to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to 7 years as maximum, to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office and to indemnify the victim Josefina Meimban the sum of P1,000.00 representing the money given to her. The Sandiganbayan also found Mejia, in Criminal Case 1989, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph (b), Section 3 of RA 3019 and likewise sentenced her to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to 7 years as maximum, to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office and to indemnify the victim Pilar Bautista the amount of P500 representing the money given to her. Mejia was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. Mejia filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Presidential Decree is an ex-post facto law. Held: The contention that Presidential Decree 1606 is contrary to the ex post facto provision of the Constitution is similarly premised on the allegation that "petitioner's right of appeal is being diluted or eroded efficacy wise." Mejia alleged that the procedure provided for by the Sandiganbayan are ex post facto and hence all proceedings taken against her are void ab initio being in violation of the Constitution. It is further argued that only one stage of appeal is available to Mejia under PD 1606 which effectively deprives her of the intermediate recourse to the Court of Appeals and that in said appeal to the Supreme Court only issues of law may be raised and worse still the appeal has become a matter of discretion rather than a matter of right. A more searching scrutiny of its rationale would demonstrate the lack of persuasiveness of such an argument. The Kay Villegas Kami decision, promulgated in 1970, supplies the most recent and binding pronouncement on the matter. To quote from the ponencia of Justice Makasiar: "An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the

crime when committed; (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful, and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty." Even the most careful scrutiny of the said definition fails to sustain Mejia's claim. The "lawful protection" to which an accused "has become entitled" is qualified, not given a broad scope. It hardly can be argued that the mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right to appeal is therein embraced.

ANG TIBAY VS CIR Facts: Toribio Teodoro, the manager and proprietor of Ang Tibay, laid off 89 laborers, who were members of the National Labor Union (NLU), due to alleged shortages of leather

materials. The National Labor Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against Ang Tibay, alleging therein, among others, that Toribio dominates the National Workers Brotherhood (NWB) of Ang Tibay, another union in the company, and that Toribio discriminated against the NLU and unjustly favoring the NWB, which he allegedly dominated. The Court of Industrial Relations ruled in favor of NLU, due to the failure of Ang Tibay to present records of the Bureau of Customs and Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather and thus to disprove NLUs allegation that the lack of leather materials as a scheme to discharge NLU members. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision, finding no substantial evidence that the 89 workers were dismissed due to their union affiliation or activities. Thus, the Solicitor General, in behalf of the Court of Industrial Relations filed a motion for reconsideration, while the NLU filed a motion for new trial, praying that the case be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations. Issue: Whether the CIRs freedom from the rigidity of procedural requirements prescribe special requirements of due process in administrative cases. Held: The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the Act requires it to "act according to justice 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 the 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 investigations of an administrative character. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character, to wit: a. Right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. The liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. b. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented, after the party is given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts. The right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration. c. While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place

when directly attached. This principle emanates from the more fundamental principle that the genius of constitutional government is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power. d. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the evidence must be "substantial." Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." The statute provides that 'the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. e. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. It should not, however, detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case, but their report and decision are only advisory. (Section 9, CA103.) The CIR may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute of any matter under its consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal, a justice of the peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, and may delegate to such board or public official such powers and functions as the CIR may deem necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers (Section 10) f. The CIR or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally impossible for the titular heads of the CIR personally to decide all controversies coming before them. There is no statutory authority to authorize examiners or other subordinates to render final decision, with right to appeal to board or commission, to solve the difficulty. g. The CIR should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. LANTION Facts: On 13 January 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed

Crimes in a Foreign Country". On 13 November 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America. "The Senate, by way of Resolution 11, expressed its concurrence in the ratification of said treaty. It also expressed its concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph (5)(a), Article 7 thereof (on the admissibility of the documents accompanying anextradition request upon certification by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the requested state resident in the Requesting State). On 18 June 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U. S. Note Verbale 0522 containing a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition. Jimenez was charged in the United States for violation of (a) 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States, 2 counts), (b) 26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax, 4 counts), (c) 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television, 2 counts), (d) 18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries, 6 counts), and (E) 2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another; 33 counts). On the same day, the Secretary issued Department Order 249 designating and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Jimenez (on 1 July 1999) requested copies of the official extradition request from the US Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith, and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers. The Secretary denied the request. On 6 August 1999, Jimenez filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition against the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, for mandamus (to compel the Justice Secretary to furnish Jimenez the extradition documents, to give him access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to comment on, or oppose, the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and objectively); certiorari (to set aside the Justice Secretarys letter dated 13 July 1999); and prohibition (to restrain the Justice Secretary from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in court; and to enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from performing any act directed to the extradition of Jimenez to the United States), with an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court ruled in favor of Jimenez. The Secretary filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. On 18 January 2000, by a vote of 9-6, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the Justice Secretary to furnish Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. On 3 February 2000, the Secretary timely filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. Issue:

Whether Jimenez had the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition process. Held: Presidential Decree (PD) 1069 which implements the RP-US Extradition Treaty provides the time when an extraditee shall be furnished a copy of the petition for extradition as well as its supporting papers, i.e., after the filing of the petition for extradition in the extradition court (Section 6). It is of judicial notice that the summons includes the petition for extradition which will be answered by the extraditee. There is noprovision in the Treaty and in PD 1069 which gives an extraditee the right to demand from the Justice Secretary copies of the extradition request from the US government and its supporting documents and to comment thereon while the request is still undergoing evaluation. The DFA and the DOJ, as well as the US government, maintained that the Treaty and PD 1069 do not grant the extraditee a right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition process. It is neither an international practice to afford a potential extraditee with a copy of the extradition papers during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Jimenez is, thus, bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the extradition process evaluation stage. Further, as an extradition proceeding is not criminal in character and the evaluation stage in an extradition proceeding is not akin to a preliminary investigation, the due process safeguards in the latter do not necessarily apply to the former. The procedural due process required by a given set of circumstances "must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as the private interest that has been affected by governmental action." The concept of due process is flexible for "not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure." Thus, the temporary hold on Jimenez's privilege of notice and hearing is a soft restraint on his right to due process which will not deprive him of fundamental fairness should he decide to resist the request for his extradition to the US. There is no denial of due process as long as fundamental fairness is assured a party.

GOVERNMENT OF THE U.S. VS. PURGANAN FACTS: Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez. A hearing was held to determine whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. Afterwards, such warrant was issued but the trial court allowed

Jimenez to post bail for his provisional liberty. ISSUE:

Whether or not extraditee is entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of warrant of arrest Whether or not the right to bail is available in extradition proceedings

RULING: Five Postulates of Extradition 1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime. First, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer of a fugitive from one state to the other. With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel, the flight of affluent criminals from one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has become more frequent. Accordingly, governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries. Today, a majority of nations in the world community have come to look upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of crime.[30] It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law. xxx Indeed, in this era of globalization, easier and faster international travel, and an expanding ring of international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to be an isolationist state. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country. 2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused Second, an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each others legal system and judicial process. More

pointedly, our duly authorized representatives signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. That signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given, upon extradition to the requesting state, all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein; otherwise, the treaty would not have been signed, or would have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionality. 3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. In criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore; in extradition which is sui generis -- in a class by itself -- they are not. An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. To begin with, the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x. xxxxxxxxx There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding, the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. Finally, unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final, in an extradition proceeding, our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nations foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite. Given the foregoing, it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to

ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited. Such determination during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless duplication and delay. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. It is not part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into questions that are the prerogative of that jurisdiction. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the person sought is extraditable. 4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. Fourth, our executive branch of government voluntarily entered into the Extradition Treaty, and our legislative branch ratified it. Hence, the Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty promotes comity with the requesting state. On the other hand, failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints a bad image of our country before the world community. Such failure would discourage other states from entering into treaties with us, particularly an extradition treaty that hinges on reciprocity. Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our obligations under the Treaty. This principle requires that we deliver the accused to the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition, as set forth in the Treaty, are satisfied. In other words, [t]he demanding government, when it has done all that the treaty and the law require it to do, is entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of the proper warrant, and the other government is under obligation to make the surrender. Accordingly, the Philippines must be ready and in a position to deliver the accused, should it be found proper. 5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight Fifth, persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks. This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement in the experience of the executive branch: nothing short of confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state. The present extradition case further validates the premise that persons sought to be

extradited have a propensity to flee. Indeed, extradition hearings would not even begin, if only the accused were willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. Prior acts of herein respondent -- (1) leaving the requesting state right before the conclusion of his indictment proceedings there; and (2) remaining in the requested state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are bailable -- eloquently speak of his aversion to the processes in the requesting state, as well as his predisposition to avoid them at all cost. These circumstances point to an ever-present, underlying high risk of flight. He has demonstrated that he has the capacity and the will to flee. Having fled once, what is there to stop him, given sufficient opportunity, from fleeing a second time? Due Process Is an extraditee entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest? It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word immediate to qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and arguments from them, and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered immediate. The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. By using the phrase if it appears, the law further conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding -sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. xxx Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It provides: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and

effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination -- under oath or affirmation -- of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. xxx At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record, judges merely further examine complainants and their witnesses. In the present case, validating the act of respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire system. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -- if he so desires -- in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly make trial of the main case superfluous. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature of extraditions. That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused. If a different procedure were called for at all, a more restrictive one -- not the opposite -- would be justified in view of respondents demonstrated predisposition to flee. Right to Bail Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings We agree with petitioner. As suggested by the use of the word conviction, the constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because

extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. Moreover, the constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. The provision in the Constitution stating that the right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. Hence, the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature. That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. To stress, extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court. Exceptions to the No Bail Rule The rule, we repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases. However, the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion and tyranny, as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights. Furthermore, we believe that the right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right to due process extends to the life, liberty or property of every person. It is dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application. Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling

circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis, and since it is derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness, the applicant bears the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and emphatic forcefulness. The Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive, not a judicial, responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign relations. In its barest concept, it partakes of the nature of police assistance amongst states, which is not normally a judicial prerogative. Hence, any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this power should be characterized by caution, so that the vital international and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably impeded or compromised. In short, while this Court is ever protective of the sporting idea of fair play, it also recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations.

Bail is a Matter of Discretion on the part of Appellate Court

GUZMAN VS NATIONAL UNIVERSITY FACTS: Petitioners who are students of the National University were barred from enrolment. The school claims that their scholastic standing is poor and that they have been

involved in activities that have disrupted classes and had conducted mass actions without the required permits. HELD: a. It is apparent that despite the accusations of alleged violations hurled by the school against the petitioners, the fact is that it had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein. Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite any duly published rule of theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing. b. Under the Education Act of 1982, students have the right to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, EXCEPT in case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations. The petitioner were denied of this right, and were being disciplined without due process, in violation of the admonition in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools that no penalty shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in *** (the) Manuel and/or in the school rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been conducted. It has already been held in Berina vs. Philippine Maritime Institute, 117 SCRA 581, that it is illegal of a school to impose sanctions on students without conducting due investigation. c. Of course, all schools have the power to adopt and enforce its rules. In fact the maintenance of good school discipline is a duty specifically enjoined on every private school. The Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides that: * * The school rules governing discipline and the corresponding sanctions therefor must be clearly specified and defined in writing and made known to the students and/or their parents or guardians. Schools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary from time to time effective as of the date of their promulgation unless otherwise specified. d. The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. Due process in disciplinary cases involving students: a. need not entail proceedings and hearing similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in court of justice; b. the proceedings may be summary;

c. cross-examination is not an essential part thereof. But the S.C. said that the following minimum standards must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process: 1. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; 2. they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel; 3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them; 4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; 5. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

GONZALES VS. NLRC FACTS - Lorlene Gonzales was a Grade 6 teacher in Ateneo de Davao University from 1974 to 1993, when she was terminated. In 1991, the Grade School Headmaster sent her a letter informing her of 2 complaints from parents of her students for alleged use of corporal punishment. She demanded to know who the parents were because Ateneo

wouldnt tell her. When she found out that Ateneo was soliciting complaints from parents of her students, she demanded an investigation. - Ateneo sent her a notice of investigation, schedule, Committee composition, affidavits of the parents, and the rules of procedure. She refused to take part in the investigation unless the rules of procedure were revised. The committee, under advise of counsel, did not revise the rules, since it had been used for a different teacher in the past. The investigation went on, without her participation. In 1993, she was asked to tender her resignation, otherwise she would be considered resigned. - Lorlene filed for illegal dismissal with the LA. The LA found that she was indeed illegally dismissed because although she was afforded due process, Ateneo failed to establish substantial evidence as to Lorlenes guilt. It was established that she is a very good teacher, equipped with the appropriate educational qualifications, trainings, seminars and work experiences. Such fact was affirmed by her present and former students, their parents, colleagues and the former headmaster of the grade school. As a matter of fact, 6 out of the nine 9 students and their parents/guardians retracted and withdrew their statements. - NLRC reversed LAs decision, saying the dismissal was valid and legal. ISSUE WON dismissal was valid and legal HELD NO - In view of the foregoing, the conclusion of the NLRC is unwarranted. No due process The committee refused to revise the rules of procedure. As a result, Lorlene wasnt afforded a chance defend herself and to examine / cross -examine the accusers. Failure to prove by substantial evidence The evidence of Ateneo didnt measure up to the standard laid down in Ang Tibay v CIR: "substantial evidence is more than mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Lorlenes evidence She was able to prove that shes a competent and dedicated teacher of Ateneo for 17 years. - Employment is not merely a contractual relationship; it has assumed the nature of property right. It may spell the difference whether or not a family will have food on their table, roof over their heads and education for their children. It is for this reason that the State has taken up measures to protect employees from unjustified dismissals. It is also because of this that the right to security of tenure is not only a statutory right but, more so, a constitutional right.

ATENEO VS. CAPULONG Facts: Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law student of Petitioner University, died of serious physical injuries at Chinese General Hospital after the initiation rites of Aquila Legis. Bienvenido Marquez was also hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal

failure occasioned by the serious physical injuries inflicted upon him on the same occasion. Petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-FacultyStudent Investigating Committee which was tasked to investigate and submit a report within 72 hours on the circumstances surrounding the death of Lennie Villa. Said notice also required respondent students to submit their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt. Although respondent students received a copy of the written notice, they failed to file a reply. In the meantime, they were placed on preventive suspension. The Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee, after receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies of several witness, found a prima facie case against respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge. Petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board to hear the charges against respondent students. The Board found respondent students guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities. However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal, the Board left the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. This was granted. A TRO was also issued enjoining petitioners from dismissing the respondents. A day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board to investigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza. This was requested to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of due process. This was granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered. Issue: Was Held: There was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due process. Dean of the Ateneo Law School, notified and required respondent students to submit their written statement on the incident. Instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through their counsel, copies of the charges. The nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in petitioners' notices. Present is the twin elements of notice and hearing. Respondent students argue that petitioners are not in a position to file the instant petition under Rule 65 considering that they failed to file a motion for reconsideration first before the trial court, thereby by passing the latter and the Court of Appeals. It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the case involves a question of law, as in this case, where the issue is whether or there denial of due process against the respondent students.

not respondent students have been afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner University. Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, such as petitioner university herein, thus: (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if desired: (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.