Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3


Kani lang jud ako nakaya. Ayaw
DUE PROCESS OF LAW mu panaway ha. Hehe. Hope these
could help. Good luck and God
SMITH, BELL & CO. vs NATIVIDAD (Malcolm, J.)

40 Phil 136, 144-145 (1919)


-Smith, Bell & Co. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands;
majority of the stockholders are British; owner of a motor vessel known as the Bato—brought to
Cebu for the purpose of transporting Smith, Bell & Co.’s merchandise between ports in the

-application for registration was made at Cebu at the Collector of Customs---denied. Because
they were not citizens of the US/Phils.

-Act 2671, Sec. 1172. Certificate ofPhilippine Register.—upon registration of a vessel of domestic
ownership, and of more than 15 tons gross, a certificate of Philippine register shall be issued for
it. If the vessel is of domestic ownership and of 15 tons gross or less, the taking of the certificate
of Philippine register shall be optional with the owner.

-domestic ownership, as used in this section, means ownership vested in the (a) citizens or
native inhabitants of the Phil Islands; (b) citizens of the US residing in the Phil. Islands; (c) any
corporation or company composed wholly of citizen of Phils./US or both

-plaintiff’s contention: Act No. 2671 deprives the corp. of its property without due process of law
because by the passage of the law, the company was automatically deprived of every beneficial
attribute of ownership of the Bato and that they are left with a naked title they could not use.

Issue: WON Smith, Bell & Co. were denied of the due process of law by the Phil. Legislature in its
enactment of Act 2761.

Ruling: No. (judgment affirmed—plaintiff can’t be granted registry.)

RD: Act No. 2761, in denying to corporations such as Smith, Bell & Co. Ltd., the right to register
vessels in the Phils. Coastwide trade, falls within the authorized exceptions. Specifically within
the purview of the police power. Literally and absolutely, steamship lines are the arteries of the
commerce in the Phils. If one be severed, the lifeblood of the nation is lost. If these are
protected, security of the country and general welfare is sustained.



GR No. 182795, June 5, 2008


-Petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in the Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City.
Their dwellings have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition, or is about to
be demolished pursuant to a court judgment.

-Petitioners claim that respondents hold fraudulent and spurious titles. Thus, the petition for writ
of amparo.

-rule on writ of amparo: is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings or

Issue: WON the writ of amparo is a correct remedy for the petitioners.

Ruling: No.

RD: The writ of amparo does not cover the cause of the petitioners. The threatened demolition of
a dwelling by a virtue of a final judgment of the court is not included among the enumeration of
rights covered by the writ. Also, the factual and legal basis for petitioners claim to the land in
question is not alleged at all in the petition.



GR No. 164774, April 12, 2006


-Star Paper Corporation : engaged in trading, principally of paper products

-Simbol, Comia and Estrella were all regular employees of the company.

-Simbol : employed on Oct 27, 1993; met Alma Dayrit at the company; married her on June 27,
1998; prior to the marriage, Ongsitco (HR manager) advised that if they get married, one of
them should resign pursuant to a company policy; Simbol resigned on June 20, 2008

-Comia : hired Feb 5, 1997; met Howard Comia; married on June 1, 2000; Comia resigned on June
30, 2000

-Estrella : hired on July 29, 1994; met Luisito Zuniga, a married man who got her pregnant;
company alleged to have terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to resign on
Dec 21, 1999

-The three signed a Release and Confirmation agreement wherein it is also stated that they will
release the latter of any claim or demand of whatever nature.
-Art 136 of the Labor Code: “It shall beunlawful for an employer to require as a condition of
employment of continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to
stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall be deemed
resigned, dismissed…”

Issue: WON the employer’s policy of banning spouses from working in the same company
violates the rights of the employee under the Consitution and deprives the respondents of their
right to property (i.e. their jobs).

Ruling: Respondent’s rights were violated.

RD: While it is true that the company policy takes the nature of an anti-nepotism employment
policy, such policy must be reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as a valid exercise of
management prerogative. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business concern in
imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice employee’s right.