Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Henares v LTFRB
GR No. 158290
October 23, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation
and Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles
(PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
ISSUES:
(1) Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition
before us?
(2) Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs
to use CNG as alternative fuel?
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the
"Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." SEC. 4. Recognition of Rights.
Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the following rights of
citizens are hereby sought to be recognized and the State shall
seek to guarantee their enjoyment:
a) The right to breathe clean air;
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to
the principle of sustainable development;
c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning,
implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and
(3) the water needs of the residents in the subject area was
already being well served by the petitioner.
RTC denied the appeal and upheld NWRB Decision. RTC denied
MFR.
Commission (NLRC).
Facts:
The accused were charged as having been engaged in the recruitment
and deployment of workers without having previously obtained from the
POEA a license or authority to do so. They promised employment abroad
particularly in Brunei and Malaysia, thus causing and prompting the
persons of BBB and AAA to apply which employment however did not
materialize because in truth and in fact, the promised employment is
non-existent, in flagrant violation of the above-mentioned law and
causing damage and prejudice to said complainants. Instead of getting
decent jobs, they were forced to become sex workers to earn money and
became prostitutes. The lower court found the accused guilty of illegal
recruitment defined under Section 6 and penalized under Section 7(b) of
Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as principals by direct participation,
committed by a syndicate, against BBB and AAA, and SENTENCES each
of said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P1,000,000.00 each; to pay each of the above victims P50,000.00
as moral
damages; P300,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. The
Court of Appeals affirmed with modification that the amount of
exemplary damages in favor of the victims (private complainants) to be
reduced to P25,000.00 each.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages was proper.
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court modified the ruling of the Court of Appeals. It
held that Congress passed R.A. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act. Such law was approved on 26 May 2003. Ironically, only a few days
after, victims found themselves in a situation that the law had sought to
prevent.
In Lalli, the Supreme Court increased the amount of moral and
After bidding for a waste management project with the MMDA, Jancom
won a contract for the MMDAs San Mateo waste management project. A
BOT contract for the waste to energy project was signed on Dec 19,
1997, between Jancom and the Philippine Government, represented by
the Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste Management through DENR
Secretary Victor Ramos, CORD-NCR chair Dionisio dela Serna, and MMDA
chair Prospero Oreta.
The contract, however, was never signed by President Ramos as it was
too close to the end of his term. He endorsed it to President Estrada, but
Estrada refused to sign it, for two reasons: the passage of RA 8749, or
the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the clamor of San Mateo residents for the
closure of the dumpsite.
When the MMDA published another call for proposals for solid waste
management projects for Metro Manila, Jancom filed a petition with the
Pasig RTC asking the court to declare as void the resolution of the
Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee
disregarding the BOT contract with Jancom, and the call for bids for a
new waste management contract.
On May 29, 2000, the lower court decided in favor of Jancom. Instead of
appealing, the MMDA filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari and a TRO. When the CA dismissed the petition, the MMDA
went to the Supreme Court, arguing that the contract with Jancom was
not binding because it was not signed by the President, the conditions
precedent to the contract were not complied with, and there was no valid
notice of award.
The Supreme Court ruled that MMDA should have filed a motion for
appeal instead of for certiorari, because a certiorari would only apply in
cases where there was grave abuse of jurisdiction, something which the
petition did not allege. Correction may be obtained only by an appeal
from the final decision. Since the decision was not appeal, the Court said
it has become final and gone beyond the reach of any court to modify in
any substantive aspect.
Though saying it was unnecessary to discuss the substantive issues, the
court took it up just the same, if only to put the petitioners mind to
rest.
The contract with Jancom is valid: citing Article 1305, 1315 and 1319 of
the Civil Code.
In asserting that there was no valid and binding contract, MMDA can only
allege that there was no valid notice of award; the contract does not
bear the signature of the President; the conditions precedent specified in
the contract were not complied with.
But the Court said that the lack of notice was the governments fault;
though the President did not sign, his alter-ego did; and anyway his
signature was only necessary for the effectivity of the contract, not its
perfection; and that the two-month period within which Jancom should
comply with the conditions had not yet started to run because the
contract had not yet taken effect, precisely because of the absence of
the Presidents signature.
HELD:
The Court of Appeals did not err when it declared the existence of a valid
and perfected contract between the Republic of the Philippines and
Jancom. The MMDA cannot revoke or renounce the same without the
consent of the other. Although the contract is a perfected one, it is still
ineffective or unimplementable until and unless it is approved by the
President.
Voting: vitug, panganiban, Sandoval Gutierrez concur.
Carpio j: No part, I was former counsel to a foreign partner of Jancom
Environmental Corporation.
Section 11, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution says: The Supreme Court
en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or
order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.
Does this mean that all administrative decisions and penalties may be
rendered only by the Supreme Court en banc?
On February 7, 1989, the Court promulgated Circular No. 2-89 which
says: A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court, when concurred
in by a majority of its members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least three such Members, is a decision or
resolution of the Supreme Court (Sec 4 (3), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
8. Garcia vs. Corona
Facts:
The government decided in March 1996 to pursue a policy of
deregulation by enacting Republic Act No. 8180 (R.A. No. 8180) or the
Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996.
R.A. No. 8180, however, met strong opposition, and rightly so, as this
Court concluded in its November 5, 1997 decision in Tatad vs. Secretary
of Department of Energy. We struck down the law as invalid because the
three key provisions intended to promote free competition were shown to
achieve the opposite result; contrary to its intent, R.A. No. 8180s
provisions on tariff differential, inventory requirements, and predatory
pricing inhibited fair competition, encouraged monopolistic power, and
9. People vs Lalli
FACTS
Ronnie Aringoy asked Lolita Plando if she wants to work as restaurant
entertainer in Malaysia, since Lolita is interested, she inquired how she
could apply. Ronnie brought Lolita to Nestor Relampagos and Hadja Lalli.
The latter accompanied Lolita and other women in Malaysia by boat from
Zamboanga to Sandakan, Malaysia and then boarded a van going to Kota
Kinabalu. They were forced to work as prostitutes in pipen Club in
Labuan, Malaysia. Lolita worked as a prostitute from June 14 to July 8,
2005. Every night, a customer used her. She had at least one customer
or more a night, and at most, she had around five customers a night.
They all had sexual intercourse with her. Lolita was saved by her brotherin-law who acted as a customer.
ISSUE
Is Lalli, Relampagos and Aringoy guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment
ISSUE:
RULING:
TMPC raises as issue that the RTC erred in holding that Section 47
of PD No. 198, as amended, is valid.
Yes.
The petition is meritorious.
court was not asked to grant MIWD the right to use but to compel
private respondents to recognize that right. Thus, the trial courts
jurisdiction must be upheld where the issue involved is not the
settlement of a water rights dispute, but the enjoyment of a right
to water use for which a permit was already granted.
12.
Topic:
VI Local Government UnitsPonente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.Date:
September 30, 2008DOCTRINE: The doctrine of conspiracy under the
RPC is applicable to RA 9262. Therefore, offenders under such law are
not limited to those related to the victim only by marriage, a former
marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship; but also include those acting
in conspiracy with them.
R.A. No. 9262 which explicitly provides for the suppletory application of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and, accordingly, the provision on
"conspiracy" under Article 8 of the RPC can be suppletorily applied to
R.A. No. 9262; that Steven and respondents had community of design
and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial
support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family
home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and
physically.Respondents Contention: Spouses Tans were contending that
the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law of
the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. They submit that
they are not covered by R.A. No. 9262 since Section 3 thereof explicitly
provides that the offender should be related to the victim only by
marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship; that
allegations on the conspiracy of respondents require a factual
determination which cannot be done by this Court in a petition for
review.TC - Granted respondent spouses Motion To Dismiss and issued a
resolution dismissing the case as to respondents on the ground that,
being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not
included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the wellknown rule of law "expressio unius est exclusio alterius."