LEGEND: BOOK CASES - ** ADDITIONAL CASE-* DISCUSSED IN CLASS-***

Chapter 3:
TITLE BASIC AND KEY FACTS ISSUE RULING PRINCIPLE/RATIONALE
GMCR v. NLRC &  Petitioner placed  Whether or not the  The Labor Code clearly Plain meaning rule or verba
SALAZAR** Imelda Salazar under Labor Tribunal provides that an legis
preventive suspension committed grave abuse employee who is
because it appeared of discretion in ordering unjustly dismissed from
that she had full the reinstatement of work shall be entitled
knowledge of the loss Respondent Salazar? to reinstatement and to
and whereabouts of an his full back wages. An
air conditioner that  Whether or not there exception to this is
Delfin Saldivar had existed independent when the reinstatement
stolen from the legal grounds to hold may be inadmissible
company but failed to Respondent Salazar due to strained
inform her employer. answerable as well relations between the
 Respondent Salazar and, thereby, justify her employer and the
filed a complaint for dismissal? employee.
illegal suspension and
for other damages.  The position of Private
 On appeal, the Respondent as
Respondent Court systems analyst is not
affirmed the decision of one that may be
the Labor Arbiter with characterized as such.
respect to the Moreover, Petitioner
reinstatement of merely insinuated that
Private Respondent but since Respondent
limited backwages to 2 Salazar had a special
years and deleted relationship with
award for moral Saldivar, she might
damages. have had direct
knowledge of
Saldivar’s questionable
activities.
BASBACIO v. DOJ  Petitioner filed a claim Whether or not Petitioner is No, he is not. For one to be When the language of the
Secretary** on RA 7309, which entitled to compensation “unjustly accused” one law is clear, it should be
provides for pursuant to RA 7309? must be wrongly accused given its natural meaning.
compensation of from the very beginning,
persons unjustly unjustly convicted (when a
accused, convicted, judge knowingly and
and imprisoned but deliberately rendered an
subsequently released unjust judgment, whimsical
by virtue of a judgment and capricious devoid of
 of acquittal. any basis for judgment)
 Petitioner claims he and imprisoned. Petitioner
was unjustly accused was acquitted because the
and is entitled to prosecution was unable to
compensation. prove beyond reasonable
doubt that Petitioner was
guilty. Thus, he does not
fall under RA 7309.
JMM PROMOTIONS AND  JMM Promotions paid Is JMM Promotions still Yes. The POEA Rules In interpreting a statute,
MANAGEMENT INC. VS. license fee amounting required to post the regarding monetary care should be taken that
NLRC & DELOS to P30, 000 and posted required appeal bond, as appeals are clear. A every part be given effect.
SANTOS** a cash bond of P100, required by Art. 223 of the reading of the POEA Rules
000 and a surety bond Labor Code, considering it shows that, in addition to
of P50,000, as required has already posted a cash the cash and surety bonds
by the POEA Rules. bond and surety bond, as and the escrow money, an
 When JMM Promotions required by the POEA? appeal bond in an amount
appealed to NLRC equivalent to the monetary
regarding a decision award is required to perfect
rendered by POEA, the an appeal from a decision
NLRC dismissed the of the POEA.
petition for failure to
post the required
appeal bond as
required by Art. 223 of
the Labor Code.
RADIOLA-TOSHIBA  The levy on attachment Whether or not the levy on No. Sec. 32 of the In interpreting a statute,
PHILS. INC. v. IAC** against the subject attachment dissolved the Insolvency Law is clear that care should be taken that
properties of spouses insolvency proceedings there is a cut off period – every part be given effect.
Carlos and Teresita against Respondent one month in attachment
Gatmaytan was issued spouses even though it cases and thirty days in
on March 4, 1980 by commenced four months judgments entered in
the Court of First after said attachment? actions commenced prior to
Instance of Pasig. the insolvency
 The insolvency proceedings. Also, there is
proceeding in the Court no conflict between Sec. 32
of First Instance of and Sec. 79. Where a
Angeles City was statute is susceptible to
commenced more than more than one
four months after the interpretation, the court
issuance of the said should adopt such
attachment. reasonable and beneficial
 Under the construction as will render
 circumstances, the provision thereof
Petitioner Radiola- operative and effective and
Toshiba Phils. harmonious with each
Contended that its lien other.
on the subject
properties overrode the
insolvency proceeding
and was not dissolved
thereby.
DE GUIA v. COMELEC**  Petitioner Manuel De Whether or not Sec. 3 of No. paragraph (d) Sec.3 of A construction that gives to
Guia is an incumbent RA 7166 should be the RA 7166 refers only to the language used in a
member of the interpreted to mean that elective officials of the statute a meaning that
Sangguniang Bayan of elective officials of the Sangguniang Panlulungsod does not accomplish the
the Municipality of Sangguniang Panlulungsod of single district cities and purpose for which the
Paranaque having and Sangguniang Bayan elective officials of the statute was enacted,
been elected in shall be elected at large? Sangguniang Bayan for should be rejected.
January 1988 local municipalities outside
election. Metro Manila. The law
 Petitioner contends specifically stated that
that under Par (d) of provinces with only one
Sec. 3 of RA 7166, legislative district should be
members of the divided into two and
Sangguniang therefore should
Panlulungsod and necessarily be elected by
Sangguniang Bayan districts. Par (d) should be
shall be elected at interpreted in line with the
large. rest of the statute and to
follow the interpretation of
the petitioner there would
have been no reason for
the RA to single out the
single district provinces.
The court realized that the
language of the law in this
case seems abstruse and
the key to determine what
legislature intended is the
purpose or reason which
induced it to enact the
statute. The explanatory
note in the proposed bill
provided that the reason for

SALENILLAS v. CA &  On December 4, 1973, 
GUERRA*** the property of
Petitioners was
mortgaged to
Philippine National
Bank as security for a  Whether or not the
loan of P2,500.
 For failure to pay their
loan, the property was
foreclosed by PNB and
was bought at a public
auction by Private
Respondent.
 Petitioner maintains
that they have a right to
repurchase the
property under Sec.119
of the Public Land Act.
 Respondent states that
the sale of the property
disqualified Petitioners
from being legal heirs
vis-à-vis the said
property.
COMENDADOR et al v.  The petitioners are  Whether or not there
CAMERA et al** officers of the Armed
Forces of the
Philippines facing
prosecution for their
the division into two
legislative districts is to
reduce the number of
candidates to be voted for
in the 1992 elections.
Whether or not  The provision makes Between two statutory
petitioners have the no distinction between interpretations, that which
right to repurchase the the legal heirs. The better serves the purpose
property under the said distinction made by of the law should prevail.
Act? Respondent
contravenes the very
prescription period had purpose of the Act.
already prescribed? Petitioners’ contention
would be more in
keeping with the spirit
of the law.
 With regard to
prescription, the
Monge case involved a
pacto de retro sale and
not a foreclosure sale
and so the rules under
the transaction would
be different. For
foreclosure sales, the
prescription period
starts on the day after
the expiration of the
period of redemption
when the deed of
absolute sale was
executed. The five year
period for the
petitioners to
repurchase their
property had not yet
prescribed.
 The right to peremptory When the reason of the law
was substantial challenge was ceases, the law itself
compliance in the suspended when ceases.
conduct of pre-trial Martial Law was
investigation? declared. But when the
 participation in the  Whether or not there same was lifted, the
failed coup d’etat on was a legal basis for right to peremptory
December 1 to 9, 1989. the GCM No. 14 to challenge was
 In connection with their deny the right of effectively revived.
prosecution, a Pre- petitioners to invoke a  The reason being, the
Investigation Panel and peremptory challenge? right was suspended
a Court Martial was  Whether or not there due to the creation of
formed. was a legal basis for military tribunals to try
 During their trial, the Regional Trial cases of military
petitioners invoked Courts to grant bail and personnel and other
their right to order for the release of cases that may
peremptory challenge. petitioners bereferred to them, so
 The same was denied when martial law was
by the Court Martial on lifted.
the ground that the  Petition is granted, and
right was discontinued the respondents are
when martial law was directed to allow the
declared under a petitioners to exercise
Presidential Decree. the right of peremptory
challenge under Art. 18
of the Articles of War.
CHUA v. CSC & NIA***  RA 6683 provided Whether or not Petitioner’s  The petition is granted. Doctrine of necessary
benefits for early status as a co-terminus The Early Retirement implications. What is
retirement and employee is excluded from Law would violate the implied in a statute is as
voluntary separation as the benefits of RA 6683 equal protection clause much a part thereof as that
well as for involuntary (Early Retirement Law). of the constitution if the which is expressed.
separation due to Supreme Court were to
reorganization. Section sustain Respondent’s
2 covers those who are submission that the
qualified: benefits of said law are
Sec. 2. Coverage. – to be denied a class of
This Act shall cover all government employees
appointive officials who are similarly
and employees of the situated as those
National Government. covered by the said
The benefits authorized law. The court applied
under this Act shall the doctrine of
apply to all regular, necessary implication
temporary, casual and in deciding this case.
emergency employees,
regardless of age, who
have rendered at least
 a total of two (2)
consecutive years of
government service as
of the date of
separation…”

 Petitioner Lydia Chua,

believing that she is
qualified to avail of the
benefits of the
program, filed an
application on January
30, 1989 with
Respondent
Administration, which,
however, denied the
same.
CITY OF MANILA & CITY  The Revised Charter of Whether or not the tax  The Court holds that Doctrine of necessary
TREASURER v. JUDGE Manila took effect on ordinance is valid? the doctrine of implications. What is
AMADOR GOMEZ OF THE June 18, 1949. It fixes implications in implied in a statute is as
CFI OF MANILA & ESSO the annual realty tax at Statutory Construction much a part thereof as that
PHILIPPINES** one and one-half sustains the City of which is expressed.
percent. The Special Manila’s contention
Education Fund Law that the additional one-
(RA 5447), which took half percent realty tax
effect on Jan. 1, 1969, is sanctioned by the
imposed an annual provision of the Special
additional one percent Education Fund Law
tax and fixes the total that “the total real
realty tax at three property tax shall not
percent. exceed a maximum of
 With the three percent three per centum”.
maximum limit set by  While the 1949
RA 5447, the municipal Revised Charter of
board of Manila Manila fixed the realty
enacted Ordinance No. tax at one and one-half
7125, effective percent, the 1969
beginning the third Special Education
quarter of 1972, Fund Law fixed three
imposing an additional percent as the
one-half percent realty maximum real property
tax. tax. The obvious
  Respondent implication is that an
Corporation paid the additional one-half
tax, but protested the percent tax could be
Ordinance; the Court of imposed by municipal
First Instance of Manila corporations.
ruled that the tax Inferentially, that law
ordinance is void as it fixed at two percent the
is not authorized by the realty tax that would
city charter or by any accrue to the city or
law, and that the city of municipality. The fact
Manila should that the 1974 Real
reimburse Respondent Property Tax Code
Corporation said tax. specially fixes the real
property tax at two
percent confirms the
prior intention of the
lawmaker to impose
two percent as the
realty tax proper. That
was also the avowed
intent of the questioned
ordinance.
PEOPLE v. MANANTAN***  Defendant Guillermo Whether or not a justice of Yes. Justice of Peace is The rule of “casus omissus
Manantan was charged the peace is included in the included in the prohibition pro omisso habendus est
of violation of Section prohibition of Section 54 of of Section 54 of the can operate and apply only
54 of the Revised the Revised Election Revised Election Code. if and when the omission
Election Code in the Code? There was no necessity has been clearly
province of anymore to include justices established.
Pangasinan. of the peace in the
SECTION 54, enumeration because the
ELECTION CODE: “No legislature had availed itself
justice, judge, fiscal. of the more generic and
Treasurer, or assessor broader term “judge”. It was
of any province, no a term not modified by any
officer or employee of word or phrase and was
the Army, no member intended to comprehend all
of the national, kinds of judges. Order of
provincial, city, dismissal is set aside. Case
municipal or rural remanded for trial on the
police force, and no merits.
classified civil service
officer or employee
 shall aid any candidate,
or exert any influence
in any manner in any
election or take part
therein, except to vote,
if entitled thereto, or to
preserve public peace,
if he is a peace officer”

 CFI of Pangasinan
ordered the dismissal
of the case, Solicitor
General appealed.
TUASON et al v.  Plaintiffs Aquial (herein Whether or not OCT No.  OCT No. 735 is valid. Stare decisis. Follow past
MARIANO, AQUIAL & Respondents) claimed and the titles derived The validity of OCT No. precedents and do not
CORDOVA** ownership of a parcel therefrom can be 735 was already disturb what has been
of land located in QC questioned at this late hour decided upon by the settled. Matters already
having an area of 383 by respondents Aquial and Supreme Court in the decided on the merits
hectares. Cordova? cases of Benin vs. cannot be relitigated again
 They alleged that it had Tuason, Alcantara vs. and again.
been fraudulently or Tuason and Pili vs.
erroneously included in Tuason. The ruling in
OCT No. 735 of the these cases was also
Registry of Deeds of applied in other cases
Rizal and that it was involving the validity of
registered in the names OCT No. 735.
of Defendants Tuason  Considering the
(herein Petitioners) principles of Stare
pursuant to a decree Decisis, it becomes
issued on July 6, 1914 evident that
in Case No. 7681 of respondents Aquial
the Court of Land and Cordova cannot
Registration. maintain their action in
 Plaintiffs Aquial prayed Civil Case No. 8943
that OCT No. 735 and without eroding the
the titles derived long settled holding of
therefrom be declared the courts that OCT
void due to certain No. 735 is valid and no
irregularities in the land longer open to attack.
registration proceeding.  Trial Court directed to
 The Tuason’s prayed dismiss Civil Case
that the petition be No.8943 with prejudice
 dismissed on the
ground that the court
has no jurisdiction over
the case, improper
venue, prescription,
laches and prior
judgment.
 Respondents Cordova
spouses were allowed
to intervene in the case
since they were able to
purchase 11 hectares
from the Aquials.