FirstPhilippineInternationalBankvs.CourtofAppeals(Jan.

24,1996)

Section10,ART.III.Nonimpairmentofobligationsandcontracts.
FACTS:
FirstPhilippineInternationalBank,whichhasbeenunderconservatorshipsince
1984,istheownerof6parcelsofland.TheBankhadanagreementwithDemetriaandJanolo
forthetwotopurchasetheparcelsoflandforapurchasepriceofP5.5million.Thesaid
agreementwasmadebyDemetriaandJanolowiththeBanksmanagerRivera.Laterhowever,
theBank,throughitsConservator,Encarnacion,soughttherepudiationoftheagreementasit
allegedthatRiverawasnotauthorizedtoenterintosuchanagreement,hencetherewasnovalid
contractofsale.Subsequently,DemetriaandJanolosuedtheBank.TheRTCruledinfavorof
Demetria,et.al.TheBankfiledanappeal.
Meanwhile,HenryCo.whoholds80%sharesofstockswiththesaidBank,fileda
motionforinterventionwiththetrialcourt.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionsincethetrialhas
beenconcludedalreadyandthecaseagainstEjercitoasassigneeisnowpendingappeal.
Subsequently,CofiledaseparatecivilcaseagainstEjercitobyDemetriaandJanoloseekingto
havethepurportedcontractofsalebedeclaredunenforceableagainsttheBank.Ejercitoet.al.
aguedthatthesecondcaseconstitutesforumshopping.

ISSUE:

Whetherornotthereisforumshopping.

RULING:
Yes.ThereIforumshoppingbecausethereisidentityofinterestandparties
betweenthefirstcaseandthesecondcase.Thereisidentityofinterestbecausebothcasessought
tohavetheagreement,whichinvolvesthesameproperty,bedeclaredunenforceableasagainst
theBank.Thereisidentityofpartieseventhoughthefirstcaseisinthenameofthebankas
defendant,andthesecondcaseisinthenameofHenryCoasplaintiff.Thereisstillforum
shoppingherebecauseCoessentiallyrepresentsthebank.Bothcasesaimtohavethebank
escapeliabilityfromtheagreementitenteredwithDemetriaet.al.
TheSupremeCourtalsodiscussedthattocombatforumshopping,which
originatedasaconceptininternationallaw,theprincipleofforumnonconveniencewas
developed.

JoseV.DeLosSantoset.al.,vsHon.NicasoYatco,et.al.
(No.L13932,December24,1959)

ART.IX(B),Section2.(1)TheCivilServiceembracesallbranches,subdivision,
instrumentalities,andagenciesoftheGovernment,includinggovernmentownedorcontrolled
corporationswithoriginalcharacters.(2)AppointmentsintheCivilServiceshallbemadeonly
accordingtomeritandfitnesstobedetermined,asfaraspracticable,andexcepttopositions
whicharepolicydetermining,primarilyconfidential,orhighlytechnical,bycompetitive
examination.(3)Noofficeroremployeeofthecivilserviceshallberemovedorsuspended
exceptforcauseprovidedbylaw.(4)Noofficeroremployeeinthecivilserviceshallengage,
directlyorindirectly,inanyelectioneeringorpartisanpoliticalcampaign.(5)Therighttoself
organizationshallnotbedeniedtogovernmentemployees.(6)Therighttoselforganization
shallnotbedeniedtogovernmentemployees.(7)Temporaryemployeesofthegovernmentshall
begivensuchprotectionasmaybeprovidedbylaw.

FACTS:
PetitionerfilesforcertioraritorevoketheorderofrespondentJudgeYatcofor
cancellinghispreviousorderforexecutionontheparceloflandownedbythepetitioner.The
saidparceloflandisbeingoccupiedbyFernandoMendoezwithanagreementtopayin
installmentthesaidlandtothepetitionersandthatheshallvoluntarilyvacatethelandandthe
paymentshepreviouslymadeshallbeforfeitedinfavoroftheplaintiff.Acivilcasewasfiledby
thepetitioneragainstMendoezforfailuretopayasperagreementofbothparties.Petitioner
laterfiledamotionforexecutiontotakethelandback.Mendoezmovedforpostponementto
givebothpartiessufficienttimetocometoanagreementwhichwasallowedbytherespondent
judge.ItwassettledbybothpartiesthatMendoezwillsecureaGSISloanhoweverwhenhe
wasreadytomakethepaymentthepetitionerrefusedtoabidewiththeiragreementandnor
askingforahigheramountofmoneyforpayment.Findingnojustificationontheissuanceofthe
writofexecution,JudgeYatcoquashedsaidorderhencethispetitionforcertioraribasedonlack
ofjurisdictionorabuseofdiscretion.

ISSUE:
discretion.

Whetherornottherespondentjudgeactedinlackofjurisdictionorabuseof

RULING:
Thecourtheldthatanyjudgehasthejurisdictiontoquashanywritofexecution
issuedbyhimespeciallywhenitwasimprovidentlyissued.Thereisnoabuseofdiscretionby
thejudgesincethedefendantmadeanoppositionandprovedthatthereissubsequentverbal
agreementthatamendedthecompromisehencetheexecutioncannotbevalidlydecreedwithout
ahearing.TheconsequentabilityofthedefendanttomeethisobligationsbysecuringaGSIS
loanalsojustifiesthecourtsrefusaltoejecthimfromthepremisesbyanexecution.

Drilonv.CA
G.R.No.91626October3,1991

FACTS:
In1973,theprivaterespondentswerechargedwithdoublemurderbeforeMilitary
CommissionNo.34.TheMilitarypromulgatedadecisiononJuly27,1973acquittingRaul
ParedesbutsentencingRodolfoGanzontolifeimprisonmentwithhardlabor.Paredeswas
thereuponreleasedfromcustodywhileGanzonwasmadetoservesentenceuntilhewasreleased
onMarch1978andplacedunderhousearrestunderguard.In1985,GanzonjoinedtheKilusang
BagongLipunan(KBL),thepartyinpower,wherehewasdesignatedascampaignmanager.
In1988,administrationhavingchanged,thenSecretaryofJusticeOrdoez
directedstateprosecutorTrampetoconductpreliminaryinvestigationagainsttheprivate
respondentsmovedtodismissal,inGanzonscase,onthegroundthathe,Ganzonhadbeen
extendedanabsolutepardonbythePresidentMarcos,andhe,havingbeenpreviouslyconvicted,
cannolongerbetriedanew,andinParedescase,onthegroundthathe,Paredeshadbeen
acquitted.Trampehowever,deniedbothrequestsandreconsiderationhavingbeenlikewise
denied,theprivaterespondentswenttotheCAonprohibition.TheCAgrantedtheirpetitions.
ThepetitionersallegethattheCA,ingrantingprohibition,committedgraveabuse
ofdiscretion:(1)RodolfoGanzonhasnotadequatelyprovedthefactofpresidentialpardon.,(2)
Noevidenceexistsinthefilestoprovepardon.,(3)Ganzonscopyisabaremachinecopyand
Ganzonhasfailedtoadequatelyestablishthelossoftheoriginal.,(4)Theallegedpardon(or
copyofit)hadnotbeenproperlysealedandauthenticated,orexecutedinofficialMalacaang
stationery;and(5)Thedispositionofthemurdercasesbythemilitarydoesnotprecludethe
filingofnewinformationbytheciviliangovernment.

ISSUE:
WONtheGovernmentmayproceedcriminallyagainsttheprivaterespondents
despiteverdictearlierrenderedbyMilitaryCommissionNo.34.

RULING:
Underthe1973Constitution,asisunderthepresentCharterthepardoning
powerofthePresident(thatis,tograntreprives,commutations,andpardons,remitfinesand
forfeitures)isfinalandunappealablesoiscommutationofsentence,inwhichtheChief

Executivereducesasentence.Itextinguishescriminalliabilitypartially,andhastheeffectof
chargingthepenaltytoalesserone.
Thecourtdoesnotbelieve,inGanzonscase,thatcommutationofsentenceneed
beinaspecificform.Itissufficient,tomind,thatGanzonwasvoluntarilyreleasedin1978with
termsandconditionsexceptthatheshouldremainunderhousearrest.Thecourtdoesnotbelieve
orconsiderGanzonshousearrestasacontinuationofhissentence,firstbecauseinnowayis
arrestapenalty.Hencetheviewofcourtisthatirrespectiveofthepardon,Ganzonhasserved
hissentenceandtoreiterate,hecannolongerbereinvestigatedforthesameoffense,muchmore
undergofurtherimprisonmenttocompletehisservice.
Petitiondenied.DecisionofCAaffirmed.

TaadavsTuvera
146SCRA446

FACTS:
Invokingtherightofthepeopletobeinformedonmattersofpublicconcernas
wellastheprinciplethatlawsofpublicconcernaswellastheprinciplethatlawstobevalidand
enforceablemustbepublishedinofficialGazette,petitionersfailedforwritofmandamusto
compelrespondentpublicofficialstopublishand/orcausetopublishvariouspresidential
decrees,lettersofinstructions,generalorders,proclamations,executiveorders,lettersof
implementationsandadministrativeorders.
TheSolicitorGeneral,representingtherespondents,movedfordismissalofthe
case,contendingthatpetitionershavenolegalpersonalitytobringtheinstantpetition.

RULING:
Art.2oftheCivilCodedoesnotprecludetherequirementofpublicationonthe
OfficialGazette,evenifthelawitselfprovidesforthedateofitseffectivity.Theclearobjectof
thisprovisionistogivethegeneralpublicadequatenoticeofthevariouslawswhichareto
regulatetheiractionsandconductascitizens.Withoutsuchnoticeandpublication,therewould
benobasisfortheapplicationofthemaximignorantialegisnominemexcusat.Itwouldbethe
heightofinjusticetopunishorotherwiseburdenacitizenforthetransgressionofalawwhichhe
hadnonoticewhatsoever,notevenaconstructiveone.
TheveryfirstclauseofSec.1ofCA638reads:thereshallbepublishedinthe
OfficialGazetteThewordshallthereinimposesuponrespondentofficialsanimperative
duty.Thatdutymustbeenforcediftheconstitutionalrightofthepeopletobeinformedon
matterofpublicconcernistobegivensubstanceandvalidity.

Guingonavs.Gonzales
214SCRA789October20,1992

FACTS:
AsaresultofnationalelectionsonMay1992,thesenatewascomposedbythe
followingpartiesLDP15,NP5,Lakas3.Applyingthemathematicalformulaagreedbyparties
theyareentitledtotwelveseats.OntheorganizationoftheSenate,MajorityFloorLeader
RomulonominatedeightsenatorsforCommissiononAppointments.SenatorGuingonaobjected
onthenominationofOsmea.

ISSUE:
WhetherornottheConstitutionrequirestheelectionandpresenceoftwelve
senatorsinthecommission.

RULING:
TheConstitutiondoesnotrequiretheelectionandpresenceoftwelvesenatorsfor
theCommissiontofunction.OtherinstancesmaybementionedofConstitutionalCollegial
bodieswhichperformtheirfunctionseveniftheircompositionisexpresslyspecifiedbythe
constitution.

Peoplevs.Velasco
13September2000

FACTS:
TherewasashootinginSanIldenfonso,Bulacan.Theshootingclaimedthelifeof
AlexVinculadoandseriouslyinjuredhistwinbrother.Theirunclewasalsoshot.Threecriminal
informationforhomicideandtwofrofrustratedhomicidewereinitiallyleadagainstHon.Galvez
andGodofredoDiego,theallegedbodyguardofthemayor.However,thechargeswere
withdrawnanewsetwasledagainstthesameaccusedupgradedthecrimestomurderand
frustratedmurder.ThetrialcourtfoundtheaccusedDiegoguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthe
crimesofmurderanddoublefrustratedmurder.However,itacquittedMayorGalvezdueto
insufficiencyofevidence.Theacquittalofaccusedwaschallenged.Allegedly,inholdingin
favorofGalvez,thejudgedeliberatelyandwrongfullydisregardedcertainfactsandevidence
whichifjudiciouslyconsidered,wouldhaveledtofindingguiltoftheaccusedbeyond
reasonabledoubt.

ISSUE:
WhetherornotareviewbytheSupremeCourtofajudgmentofacquittalinlight
oftheconstitutionalinterdictagainstdoublejeopardyispermissible.

RULING:
Itbearsrepeatingthatwhereacquittalisconcerned,therulesdonotdistinguish
whetheritoccursatthelevelofthetrialoronappealfromajudgmentofconviction.Thisfirmly
establishesthefinalityofacquittalruleinourjurisdiction.Therefore,asmandatedbyour
Constitution,statutesandcognatejurisprudence,onacquittalisfinalandunappealableonthe
groundofdoublejeopardy,whetherithappensatthetrialcourtlevelorbeforethecourtof
appeals.

Syquiav.Lopez,Et.Al.
G.R.No.L1648,August17,1949

FACTS:
Plaintiffs,SyquiaandLeopoldoaretheundividedjointownersofthreeapartment
buildingssituatedinManila.TheyexecutedthreeLeasecontractsoneforeachofthethree
apartments.Theperiodforthreeleaseswastobeforthedurationofthewarandsixmonths
thereafter,unlesssoonerterminatedbytheUS.Theapartmentbuildingswereusedforbilleting
andquarteringofficesoftheUSarmedForcesstationedinManila.SixmonthsafterSeptember
2,1945whenJapansurrendered,plaintiffsapproachedthedefendantsandrequestedthereturnof
theapartmentbuildings.DefendantsexpressedtoplaintiffsthattheUSArmywantedtocontinue
occupyingthepremises.Plaintiffsrequestedtonegotiatesaidleases,toexecutealeasecontract
foraperiodofthreeyearsandtopayareasonablerentalhigherthanthosepayableunderold
contracts.

ISSUE:

Whoistherealpartyininterest?

RULING:
Thecourtisconcernedthattherealpartyininterestasdefendantintheoriginal
caseistheUSGovernment.ThelesseeineachofthethreeleaseagreementswastheUnited
StatesofAmericaandtheleaseagreementwasthemselveswereexecutedinhernamebyher
officialsactingasheragents.TheconsiderationsorrentalswasalwayspaidbytheUS
Government.TheoriginalactionintheMunicipalCourtwasbroughtonthebasisofthesethree
leasecontractsanditisobviousintheopinionofthiscourtthatanybackrentalsorincreased
rentalswillhavetobepaidbytheUSGovernmentnotonlybecausethecontractswereentered

intobysuchGovernmentbutalsobecausethepremiseswereusedbyofficersofherarmed
forcesduringthewarimmediatelyaftertheterminationofhostilities.

Wisconsinvs.Yoder
32Led2d15

FACTS:
RespondentsJonasYoder,WallaceMillerandAdinYutzyaremembersofthe
Amishreligion.WisconsinsCompulsoryschoolattendancelawrequiredthemtocausetheir
childrentoattendpublicorprivateschooluntiltheyreachsixteen.Respondentsdecidedtosend
theirchildrentopublicschoolaftercompletionoftheeightgrade.Respondentswereconvicted
ofviolatingthelawandfined$5each.

ISSUE:
Didtheapplicationofcompulsoryattendancelawviolaterespondentsrights
underthefirstandfourteenthamendmentstotheUSConstitutions?

RULING:
TheapplicationisunconstitutionalasappliedtotheAmish.TheAmishobjectto
thehighschooleducationbecausethevaluetaughttherearemarkedvariancefromtheAmish
valuesandwayoflife.ItplacesAmishchildreninanenvironmenthostiletotheirbeliefsand
takesawayfromtheircommunityduringacrucialperiodintheirlife.
Thestatehasthepowertoimposereasonableregulationsforthecontroland
durationofbasiceducation.Previousprecedenthasheldthatthispowermustyieldtotherightof
theparentstoprovideanequivalenteducationinaprivatelyoperatedsystem.
ThestatefinallyarguesthatexemptingtheAmishchildrenfailstorecognizethe
childrenssubstantiverighttoasecondaryeducation,givingreregardedtothepowerofthestate

asparentspartial.OnthisrecordthereisnoneedtodecideanissueinwhichtheAmishparents
arepreventingchildrenwhowishtofurthertheireducationfromattendingschool.