Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

STAT CON debate and that the reason for the rule is that written

reports/resolutions must be reproduces in speech and the act of

Vera vs. Avelino (Aug 31 1946 Bengzon, J.) voting. They decided that these privileges were for to support the
Facts: rights of the people by enabling their representatives to execute
 PETS Jose Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose Romero were among their functions of office without fear of prosecution. The article
the 16 senatorial candidates who COMELE declared received the should be construed liberally, not strictly.
highest votes during the 1946 elections.  Court stated that “having sworn to uphold the Constitution, we must
 During the said national elections, COMELEC submitted to the enforce the constitutional directive. We must not question, nor
President and to Congress a report regarding certain acts of permit respondents to be questioned here in connection with their
terrorism and violence in the provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga, votes”.
Nueva Ecija, and Tarlac (“many residents of the four provinces
have voluntarily banished themselves from their home towns in De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council (Mar 27 2010 Bersamin, J.)
order not to be subjected to the prevailing oppression and to avoid Facts
being victimized or losing their lives”, terrorism go worst after the  CJ Reynato Puno’s compulsory retirement is just days after the
election, terrorism was in order to insure the election of the coming 2010 presidential elections
candidates of the Conservative wing of the Nationalist Party)  Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII, that
 COMELEC reported that these acts of terrorism and violence made “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
the voting in these regions not reflect the true and free expression thereof” from a “list of at least three nominees prepared by the
of the popular will; the election returns from these provinces were Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.”
null and void because the great majority of voters were coerced or  Sec 15 Art VII of Consti prohibits the President or Acting President
intimidated and suffered from paralysis of judgment in voting. from making appointments within two months immediately before
 When Senate convened on May 1946, a resolution was approved the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except
that the PETS shall not be sworn, not seated, as Senators temporary appointments to executive positions when continued
(deferred pending hearing and decision). vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
 PETS immediately filed an action to annul the resolution and to safety.
compel the Senate to permit them to occupy their seats and to  The RES JBC agreed to start the process of filling up the CJ
exercise their senatorial prerogative. position and “automatically considered” the 5 most senior of the
 PETS also allege that the Senate does not have the jurisdiction to Associate Justices of the Court for CJ (Antonio Carpio, Conchita
prevent them from taking their seats and that it was the part of the Morales, Renato Corona, Presibetero Velasco, Antonio Nachura,
Electoral Tribunal. last two declined).
ISSUE: W/N the resolution was valid.  The OSG contends that the incumbent President may appoint the
HELD: DISMISSED. next CJ because Sec 15 Art VII does not apply to SC appointments
 The judiciary cannot interfere with the functions of the Senate and that if the framers had intended it to apply to the SC that they
because of the doctrine of separation of powers. The judiciary could have expressively stated so and explains why the provision
cannot order the Senate to reinstate the PETS because it would wasn’t found in Art VII (Judicial Dept.); also contends that the
establish judicial predominance and upset the pattern of checks Consti provided the Pres with limitations to appoint SC members to
and balance. insure its independence from political vicissitudes and political
 According top Sec 15 Art VI of the Consti, “for any speech or pressures.
debate” in Congress, Senators and Congressmen “shall not be  PET Arturo De Castro (and 7 other cases) questions whether the
questioned in any other place”. The SC of the US interpreted this JBC properly initiated the process; some people believe that the
provision to include the giving of a vote or the presentation of a JBC can only do so once the vacany has occurred
resolution since it would be a narrow view to limit it to spoken ISSUE: W/N the incumbent President can appoint the next CJ.
HELD: YES. the good of national interest and general welfare if if did not
 Sec 15 Art VII does not apply to SC appointments or to other conform to the WTO Agreement.
appointments in the judiciary.  PET contends that WTO Agreement is against Sec 19 Art II
 The two provisions are seemingly in conflict: (1) Sec 15 Art VII: (development of self reliant and independent national
Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and economy) and Secs 10&12, Art XII (“Filipino First”).
up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not ISSUE: W/N the Resolution 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is
make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive unconstitutional.
positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public HELD: NO.
service or endanger public safety. (2) Sec 4(1) Art VIII: The  The Consti does not prohibit the PH from participating in worldwide
Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen trade liberalization and economic globalization; there are enough
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division balancing provisions in the Consti to allow the Senate to ratify the
of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within WTO Agreement.
ninety days from the occurrence thereof.  Sec 19 Art II, a “declaration of principles and state policies” are not
 Since the framers did not specifically extend the President’s intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement thru
prohibition to the SC reveals that the prohibition does not refer to the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aides or guides in the
members of SC. exercise of its power of judicial review and by the legislature in its
 Secs. 14, 15, 16 of Art VII all refer the the President’s power to enactment of laws.
appoint. The fact that Sec 14 and 16 only refer to appointments  Filipino First: While the Consti has a bias in favor of Filipino
within the Executive Department means that 15 also refers to the goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it
Executive Department. recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the
 Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity, and limits protection
context, every part must be considered together with the other of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade
parts (interpret with regards to other provisions, as a whole). practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not
intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
5. SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS investments, goods and services in the development of the
Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the
a. Tanada vs. Angara (May 2 1997 Panganiban, J.) unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the
Facts country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an
 PET Sen. Wigberto Tanada with lawmakers, taxpayers, various exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on
NGOs; they pray for the nullification of the PH ratification of the foreign competition that is unfair.
World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.; Resolution 97 was  The above provisions are not self-executing and do not embody
adopted by Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for
 The WTO opens access to foreign markets, thru the reduction of legislation.
tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial
products. Thus, new opportunities for the service sector, reduction b. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (Feb 3 1997 Bellosillo, J.)
of costs and uncertainty with exporting, and the attraction of more Facts:
investments into the country.  GSIS, pursuant to privatization program of PH government under
 PETS contend that the WTO Agreement will be detrimental to the Proclamation #50, decided to sell thru public bidding 30-51% of the
growth of the National Economy and is against the “Filipino First” shares of the Manila Hotel Corp.
policy (Art XII Sec 9 Consti) and that it is unconstitutional because  There were 2 bidders; the Manila Prince Hotel Copr. Which offered
it is an assault on the sovereign powers of the PH because it to buy 51% of shares at 41.58php per share, and Malaysian firm
meant that Congress could not pass legislation that would be for Renong Berhad which offered 44php per share.
 Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winner, PET  PET requests RES and other persons acting in his behalf to (1)
matched the bid at 44php per share but GSIS refused to accept the cancel all existing TLAs in the country, (2) cease and desist from
bid. receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or approving new TLAs
 PETS contend that RES violated the Filipino First policy (Sec 10(2)  PET assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
Art XII) continued deforestation are capable of unquestionable
ISSUE: W/N Sec 10 Art XII of Consti is self-executing. demonstration and may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice.
HELD: YES.  PET contends that RES violated Sec 16 Art II of the Consti which
 SECTION 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the recognizes the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, ecology
reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or  RTC dismissed the complaint, stating that PET failed to allege with
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by sufficient definiteness a legal right involved or a legal wrong
such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may committed and that complaint was only vague assumptions and
prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact conclusions without verified data.
measures that will encourage the formation and operation of ISSUE: W/N there is a legal wrong involved.
enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. HELD: YES.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the  The complaint focuses on the fundamental right to a balanced and
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to healthful ecology provided by Sec 16, Art II. This right unites with
qualified Filipinos. the right in the preceding section Sec 15 which states that “The
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people
investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with and instill health consciousness among them.”
its national goals and priorities.  These provisions are self-executing.
 A provision which lays down a general principle is usually not self-
executing. But, a provision which is complete in itself and becomes II. STARE DECISIS, RES JUDICATA, AND LAW OF THE CASE
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation,  Stare Decisis - a judgment reached in one case should be applied
or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it to successive ones in which the facts are substantially identical,
grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. even though the parties may be different. Like cases ought to be
 A consti provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the decided alike.
right and the liability are fixed by the constitution itself. Unless it is  Res Judicata - a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent
expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.
provision in the consti, the presumption is all provision of the consti  Law of the Case - refers to instances where rulings made by a trial
are self-executing. court and not challenged on appeal become the law of the case.
 Sec 10(2) Art XII of the consti is a mandatory, positive command  a term applied to an established rule that
which is complete in itself and needs no further guidelines or when an appellate court passes on a
implementing laws/rules for its enforcement. question and remands the cause to the lower
court for further proceedings, the question
c. Oposa vs. Factoran (Jul 30 1993 Davide, J.) there settled becomes the law of the case
Facts upon subsequent appeal
 The principal petitioners, 44 minors and duly represented by the
parents, alleged that the RES Fulgencio Factoran the Sec of DENR a. Villena vs. Spouses Chavez (Nov 10 2003 Panganiban, J.)
continued approval of the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to Facts:
numerous commercial logging companies to cut and deforest the  RES filed an Illegal Detainer with Damages
remaining PH forests.
 The RES Antonio & Noemi Chavez alleged that they owned 4 b. Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals (Aug 28 1996 Bellosillo, J.)
parcels of land and that these parcels of land have been Facts:
consolidated and subdivided into several blocks and lots and are  PET Nicolas Veloso, J. et, al. seek reversal of the decision of CA
now collectively designated as Bagong Silang Phase III-C. PET dismissing their petition to annul judgment rendered by the RTC.
have occupies and erected homes on the lots by mere permission PET claim that the RTC decision was flawed because the issues
and tolerance of the RES. raised therein had already been resolved in an earlier case with the
 RES allowed the members of the Bagong Silang Phase III-C same parties and subject matter and that the RTC had no power to
Homeowners Assoc. Inc. to occupy the lots ultimately to acquire countermand a decision of a co-equal court.
ownership in consideration of a certain amount to be paid the RES  THE CASE: Respondents Avellana et, al. filed a complaint for
as equity. quieting the title with damages against PET before the RTC. The
 Other members paid to RES equity, but PET have refused and RTC rendered judgment finding the subject title was authentic and
failed to pay their equity and have forfeited their right to continue valid, declared the respondents co-owners, directed the PET to
occupying the lots. Formal letters were set to PET, giving them 30 deliver to respondents the physical and material possession with all
days to vacate and remove their houses from the lots. PET refused improvements thereon, and ordered PET to pay respondents’ atty.
and failed to do so. fees and litigation expenses. PET elevated the case to the CA,
 RES filed a Complaint to order PET to vacate the lot and pay RES wherein the RTC decision was affirmed.
rent until PET have finally vacated; PET alleged that RES had no ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in not reversing the decision of the RTC, in
action to institute the complaint because the lots were under the violation of the doctrine of res judicdata and the law of the case.
community mortgage program implemented by the Nat’l Home HELD: NO.
Mortgage Finance Corp. and that they have been paying equity to  PET rely on the decision of Civil Case #R-205 which already
the originator Urban Land Dev. Foundation but were not issued became final and executory for lack of appeal by any of the parties,
receipts. PET also contend that they are beneficiaries of RA 7279 and on Civil Case #B-122 which was affirmed by the CA. PET
(Urban Dev. And Housing Act) and cannot be evicted from their alleged that those decisions upheld their possession and
dwelling and their houses demolished until they have been ownership of the lot. PET claim that RTC had no jurisdicrion to
relocated. amend, alter, or modify those decisions.
ISSUE: W/N PET can continue occupying subject lots.  Under the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment, the PET
HELD: YES. are seeking a second cycle of review regarding a subject matter
 There was an agreement between PET and RES for payment of which has already been fully and fairly adjudicated and that cannot
equity and was not merely based on the RES’ tolerance and be allowed because the facts and questions in the earlier cases
permission. PET were not necessarily bound by an implied promise have become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a
to vacate upon demand. subsequent action.
 PET argues that the main issue is not possession but  It is immaterial that the two actions are based on different grounds
interpretation, enforcement and/or rescission of the contract, a or tried on different theories or have different purposes and seek
matter beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC. different reliefs. Whatever is once irrevocably established as the
 PET correctly pleaded that a similar case had already been controlling legal principle or decision continues to be the law of the
decided by the CA in which it ruled that the proper action should case between the same parties in the same case so long as the
have been a complaint for rescission or specific performance, not facts on which such decision are the same.
for illegal detainer.
 When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a c. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals (Apr 18 1997 Francisco, J.)
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to Facts:
all future cases with the same facts (stare decisis).  The dispute stemmed from an unpaid promissory note executed by
PET Leovillo Agustin to ERM Commercial and was payable thru
monthly installments and secured by an Isuzu diesel truck, both of  RES extended the promo by 5 more weeks and tasked D.G.
which were assigned to private respondent Filinvest Finance Cop. Consultores to predetermine 25 additional winners from the unused
 When PET failed to pay the installments, private respondent numbers.
demanded him to pay the entire balance or surrender the  “349” was announced as the winning number for the May 26 draw.
possession of the mortgaged truck. PET refused. P. Respondent Later the same night, RES’ Marketing Services Manager called DTI
filed a complaint with the RTC against PET, praying for a writ of to inform them that due to some security code problems, a mistake
replevin which was subsequently approved. had been made in the announcement of “349” as the winning
 P. RES got the vehicle but found it to not be in running condition number. Holders of the “349” bottlecaps were not honored and paid
and that several parts were missing (which P. RES replaced). The by RES which led them to file separate complaints.
truck was sold at public auction.  Plaintiffs of the complaints withdrew and left Gerson Mendoza as
 P. RES filed a supplemental complaint to claim for the the sole plaintiff. The other plaintiffs refiled their complaints entitled
reimbursement of the replacement parts and for transporting Rodrigo v. Pepsi. In the Mendoza case, RTC dismissed the
expenses of the vehicle. RTC granted the motion. PET elevated complaint for lack of merit. The Rodrigo case was also dismissed.
the matter to the CA.  However, prior to the resolution of the Mendoza and Rodrigo
 PET contends that the award of repossession expenses to P. RES. cases, PET filed with RTC a motion to adopt the previous
Is contrary to Art 1484 of the Civil Code and that the expenses testimonial and evidence in Mendoza and Rodrigo or archive the
have been covered by the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and case until final resolution of the two cases.
he could no longer be held liable.  RES filed with RTC a motion to dismiss the complaints of PET on
ISSUE: W/N the PET is still liable to pay for the repossession the ground of stare decisis.
expenses.  PET comes to SC for review contending that res judicata does not
HELD: YES. apply and the dismissal of the complaint was premature as PET
 Ruling of the CA affirming the RTC decision has long acquired motion to archive was based on the decision in Mendoza and
finality. CA had already settled the propriety of awarding Rodrigo.
repossession expenses to P. RES and has become the law of the ISSUE: W/N the present case is barred by the ruling in Mendoza and
case. Rodrigo.
 Even if the law of the case doctrine is set aside, the award for HELD: YES.
repossession is still proper. In Filipinas Investment & Finance Corp.  PET contend that res judicata does not apply because there is no
vs. Ridad, the Court recognized an exception to the rule states identity of parties; that stare decisis does not apply because it is
under Art 1484(3) upon which PET relies (when PET refused to not a hard and fast rule.
deliver the truck, he is liable to pay the fees of repossession).  Stare decisis in enshrined in Art 8 of the Civil Code. The facts in
the current case are exactly the same as in Mendoza and Rodrigo.
d. De Mesa vs. Pepsi Cola Products PH (Aug 19 2005 The Court’s hands are now tied by the finality of the said
Quisumbing, J.) judgments.
 PET Amelia De Mesa et, al. are holders of soft drink bottle caps III. RATIO DECIDENDI and OBITER DICTUM
bearing the number “349”, allegedly a winning combination in a  Ratio Decidendi – the point of the case that determines the
contest sponsored by RES. judgement; the rationale for the decision; binding in nature
 D.G. Consultores, a Mexican consulting firm, was tasked to  Obiter Dictum – a remark in a judgment that is said in passing and
randomly pre-select the winning numbers and sent to RES a list of is only persuasive in nature
6 winners with approval of the DTI. To ensure that the winning
numbers will not be tampered, the DTI required RES to submit the
list of the winning numbers including their security code.
a. Mercado vs. People (Nov 26 2002 Bellosillo, J.) be falsified and 2 complaints were filed by IBC against Villadores
FACTS: which were dismissed. However, probable cause was found
 PET Marvin Mercado, along with others, was charged and against other respondents. DOJ included Villadores as accused in
convicted with violating RA 6538 (Anti-Carnapping Act) the 2 criminal cases.
 PET prays the Court to review his conviction and argues that the  Following the arraignment of Villadores, PET filed for damages as
CA, having increased the penalty imposed by the court from 12 yrs a result of the crimes committed by P. RES.
to 17 yrs TO 30 yrs, should have certified the case to this Court as  RES contends PET Villanueva is not the offended party in the
the penalty of 30 yrs was already reclusion perpetua accdg to the cases, it was IBC13. PET opposed saying that the pronouncement
Rules of Criminal Procedure is only an obiter dictum. CA ruled in favor of RES.
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in increasing PET’s penalty. ISSUE: W/N CA decision was an obiter dictum.
 CA correctly held that Sec 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal  The CA decision touched upon a matter clearly raised by
Procedure that PET relied on was applicable only when the penalty respondent in his petition (whether petitioner was an offended
imposed was reclusion perpetua or higher. The penalty imposed by party). An obiter dictum is an opinion expressed by a court upon
CA was in accordance to the Anti-Carnapping Act and is not some question of law which is not necessary to the decision of the
considered reclusion perpetua. case before it. It is incidental, and not directly upon the question
 CA relied on People vs. Omotoy, where RTC sentenced arsonist to before him. Such are not binding as precedent. The body of the
12 yrs TO 30 yrs decision contains discussion on that point and it clearly mentioned
 Art 27 of RPC states that reclusion perpetua is 20 yrs 1 day TO 40 certain principles of law. Adjudication on any point within the issues
yrs. While the 30 yr period fall within that range, reclusion perpetua presented by the case cannot be considered as obiter dictum , and
is a single indivisible penalty and cannot be divided into different this rule applies to all pertinent questions, although only incidentally
periods. involved, which are presented and decided in the regular course of
 The crim of PET was penalized by a special law and not under the the consideration of the case, and led up to the final conclusion,
RPC. If the special law imposes such penalty, it is erroneous to and to any statement as to matter on which the decision is
designate it in provisions of RPC. Special laws provide for their predicated.
own specific penalties.  So, also, where a case presents two (2) or more points, any one
 The ratio of Omotoy may not have been the ratio decidendi of the of which is sufficient to determine the ultimate issue, but the court
case, but it still constitutes an important part of the decision actually decides all such points, the case as an authoritative
because it provides a fundamental procedural rule in the conduct of precedent as to every point decided, and none of such points can
appeals. be regarded as having the status of a dictum, and one point should
not be denied authority merely because another point was more
b. Francisco Villanueva, Jr. vs. CA and Roque Villadores (Mar 19 dwelt on and more fully argued and considered, nor does a
2002 De Leon, Jr., J.)* decision on one proposition make statements of the court
FACTS: regarding other propositions dicta.
 RES Villadores was one of the accused in the criminal case People
v. Atty. Tomas Bernardo, Roque Villadores, et, al. for falsification
of public document
 PET Villanueva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
IBC13. The labor arbiter rule in favor of PET and IBC13 appealed
to the Nat’l Labor Relations Commission. IBC filed a surety bond
issued by BF Gen. Insurance Comp. with a confirmation letter
supposedly issued by BF’s VP. Both documents were revealed to