|Vargas Case Digests|

Pollution adjudication board v. court of appeals

Facts and Controversy

Xxx

Petitioner’s Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments

ISSUE:

Decision of the Supreme Court

The divorce decree is valid.

Principles Involved

Article 26 of the Family Code -

Philippine Press Institute v. comelec

Facts and Controversy

Comelec issued Resolution 2772 which required the print media to give at least ½ of a page as free print
space for the purpose of elections. Philippine Press Institute stated that such a resolution is unconstitutional
on these grounds:

1. It violated the constitutional guarantee that no private property shall be taken for public use without
just compensation.
2. They constitute impositions of involuntary servitude. Art III Sec 18 (2)
3. Violative of the freedom of speech, press, and expression.

OSG Arguments:

1. It does not impose upon publishers any obligation to provide free print space because it does not
have any administrative or criminal sanction if they do not provide such. As such, it is merely a
guideline.
2. Even if it were viewed as mandatory, it would be a valid exercise of police power.

On May 5, 1995, the OSG sent a revised version of Resolution 2772-A.

ISSUE: Whether or not such taking would validly constitute as a legitimate use of police power.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Section 2 of Comelec Resolution 2772 would be susceptible of the reading petitioner interpreted it in because
it was an official communication directing print media companies to supply free print space. This would
amount to taking private property without just compensation.

Lawful taking must include: (1) necessity for the taking, and (2) legal authority to effect the taking. There was
no evidence shown that the news publishers were unwilling to sell their print space for normal rates. Second,
they did not prove their legal authority, since COMELEC is not a government agency that has been clothed
with legislative authority to exercise eminent domain.

Regarding the argument of a valid exercise of police power, the Court has stated that police power was
delegated to the commission. Second, it did not comply with the requisites of lawful taking. Furthermore,
requiring free print space does not prove a national emergency or a public safety requirement that would
necessitate taking private property.

Facts Involved

March 2, 1995 – issued resolution 2772. March 22, 1995, filed case. Commissioner Maambong sent similar
letters. April 20, 1995 – temporary restraining orders. COMELEC through Hon. Bernardo Pardo clarified
statements.
 |Vargas Case Digests|

Professional regulatory commission v. arlene de guzman

Facts and Controversy

Graduates from the Fatima College of Medicine received extremely high results for their grades in the
physician licensure exam of 1993. 79 successful examinees from the school got excellent grades in both
biochemistry and obstetrics and gynecology, no one garnering a grade lower than 90%. 11 = 100% bio-chem;
10 = 100% ob-gyne; 11 = 99% biochem; 21 = 99% ob-gyne. On June 7, 1993, Board issued Resolution No. 19
which withheld the registrations as physicians from the college. Respondents prayed for preliminary
injunction. PRC charged them with dishonesty and immoral conduct. RTC granted the prayer. Special civil
action for certiorari was obtained to CA, which nullified the writ.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. CA (issuance of license to engage in the practice of medicine can be discretionary if there is doubt
as to whether the examinees had fulfilled the requirements satisfactorily).
2. No showing of a reversible error; resolution in CA-GR SP No 31701 is final and executory.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The Board has the obligation to administer to them their oaths as physicians in accordance to Sec.
20 of RA 2382.
2. CA found respondents being compliant with all the requirements of RA 2382.

ISSUE: Whether or not the examinees should be allowed to become registered physicians.

Decision of the Supreme Court

It is a basic rule in statutory construction that each part of a statute must be construed with the other parts
of the statute. It only refers to those who have satisfactorily complied with all the requirements. However, the
surrounding circumstances call for serious inquiry. (board contention) Until the moral and mental fitness of
the respondents can be ascertained, the Board has the discretion to hold the administration of the oath and
issuance of certificates to them. Respondents counter argue that section 20 makes a list of those who are
not to be issued a certificate: any candidate convicted of moral turpitude, guilty of immoral or dishonorable
conduct, or is insane. Respondents allege that they have none of these circumstances; rejected by
petitioners by resolving to file charges of immorality.

Regarding the right of these people to be registered, the license to practice medicine is a privilege or
franchise granted by the government. It may be regulated because of the need to safeguard health,
education, and general welfare, with the regulation functioning to protect the public from deadly effects of
incompetence and ignorance. However, power to regulate the exercise of a profession cannot be exercised
in an oppressive manner. They need guidelines to refuse licenses, which is found in RA 2382.

Jmm promotion and management inc. v. ca

Facts and Controversy

After the publicized death of Maricris Sioson in 1991, President Cory Quino ordered a total ban on the
deployment of performing artists to Japan and other foreign destinations, but it was rescinded when the
overseas employment industry promised to extend full support to remove these crooks in the system. Dept.
Order 28 was issued by the Sec. of Labor which created the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council which
was tasked with issuing guidelines on training and etc. Thus came Dept Order 3, which provided guidelines
and testing, required an ARB (Artist Record Book) to attest to their skill, minimum salary, and ssuance and use
of ARB for returning artists who should undergo special orientation program.

FETMOP (federation of entertainment talent managers of the Philippines) filed a case against these Dos.
1. Assailed right to travel
2. Abridged existing contracts for employments
3. Deprived licenses without due process
4. ARB was discriminatory and violated the equal protection clause.

Trial court dismissed prayer and complaint. CA concluded that the issuances constituted a valid exercise of
police power.

ISSUE: Whether or not the DO discriminates and is illegal.

Decision of the Supreme Court

 |Vargas Case Digests|

No, it does not. The law aimed at promoting general welfare of the people under the State’s police power.
Police power interfered with personal liberty or property to promote the general welfare or the common
good.

The requirement of the Artist Record Book requirement was valid because history shows that Philippines is the
largest labor sending country in Asia with many workers looking for a brighter future, such that they would
resort to any job available. In fact, many of the women who were domestic helpers and entertainers worked
under exploitative conditions which were marked by physical and personal abuse. There were many of the
Filipina performing artists who resorted to prostitution which followed to an increased number of deaths.
Government began instituting measures at deploying only the individuals who met the standards to qualify
as legitimate performing artists.

The welfare of the performing artists was paramount in DO 3. This would at least lessen the room for
exploitation.

SC sees nothing wrong with the requirement for government and booking confirmation. Many of the
provisions were fleshed out.

Regarding the statement of their accreditation becoming a property right rotected by the due process
clause, it is untenable. A profession is a property right; however, no right is absolute, and the regulation of a
profession, calling, business, or trade is always upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police
power when their conduct affects government functions, preservation of State, or public health, welfare,
and public morals.

Invoking the non-impairment clause is futile because the non-impairment clause must also yield to the loftier
pruposes targeted by the government. It is always in the reservation of police power for as long as the
agreement deals with a subject impressed with public welfare.

On the point of equal protection on singling out entertainers and performing artists, the equal protection
clause is directed against undue favor and individual or class privilege. It doesn’t require absolute equality,
but that people be treated alike under like conditions. It doesn’t forbid a classification as long as that
classification is based on real and substantial differences.

Knights of rizal v. dmci homes inc.

Facts and Controversy

There was a case of injunction, applying for a TRO by the KOR to stop the condominium development project
which was the Torre de Manila. It was placed on a 7, 716 square meter lot in the City of Manila, located near
Taft Avenue, Ermita, beside the former Manila Jal-Alai Building and Adamson University. DMCI-PDI secured its
barangay clearance to start the construction of its project (April 2, 2012), which obtained a zoning permit
from CPDO (City Planning and Development Office). City of Council Manila issued Res. No. 121 to enjoin the
office of the building official to temporarily supend the building permit, stating that it will dwarf the sight of
the Rizal shrine.

Balagot (building official0 SOUGHT OPINION OF THE City Legal Officer on his being bound to the resolution.
CLO dela Cruz said there is no legal justification. National Historical Institute has also not classified it as a
heritage zone, a cultural property, a historical landmark, or even a national treasure. City of Manila and
DMCI-PDI sought the opinion of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), who maintained
that the project site is outside the boundaries of Rizal Park, and so it cannot obstruct the frontal view of the
monument.

The Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals issued Zoning Board Resolution No 06 to recommend
approval of DMCI-PDI’s application for variance. MZBAA noticed that it exceeded the maximum % of Land
Occupancy and Floor Area Ratio as stipulated in Article V Section 17 of City Ordinance No 8119.

KOR Arguments:

1. RA 646 filed a petition for injunction against the condominium project. It will stick out like a sore thumb
and ruin the sightline of Rizal Monument.
2. Rizal Monument is a national treasure entitled to full protection of the law.
3. Project is a nuisance per se – despoils sight view.
4. Violates Guidelines of NHCP.
5. Construction was commenced in bad faith.

DMCI-PDI Arguments:

1. Honorable court has no jurisdiction. It should have first been filed with the RTC because petition
contains questions of fact.
 |Vargas Case Digests|

2. KOR has no legal right or interest. It is not a real party in interest. Their purpose does not involve the
preservation of the Rizal Monument as a cultural or historical heritage site. It has also not shown that
it suffered actual or threatened injury.
3. Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se. They obtained all the necessary permits, licenses,
clearances, and certificates for construction. Anyway, there are other tall builders closer to Rizal
Monument like the Eton Baypark Tower.
4. They acted in good faith. It was within the lawful exercise of its rights. Even if KOR rebutted such proof,
court cannot declare acts as illegal because court is not a trier of facts.
5. KOR is not entitled to a TRO. Failed to establish an unmistakable right to enjoin construction.

City of Manila Arguments

1. Cannot issue writ of mandamus because no property or substantive rights in favor of KOR is being
affected.
2. Issuance and revocation of a building permit fall under category of discretionary act or duty
performed by the proper officer in light of his meticiulous appraisal andevaluation of the pertinent
supporting documents of the application in accordance with the rules laid out in National Building
Code and PD 1096. Remedy of mandamus only to compel performance of ministerial duties.
3. Torre de Manila did not violate existing law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Torre de Manila can be demolished for ruining the sightline of Rizal Park.

Decision of the Supreme Court

No law prohibiting the construction of Torre de Manila. What is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law
may be done, except when it is against morals, customs, and public order. No allegation or proof that Torre
de Manila is contrary to this because they have fulfilled all the necessary permits and requirements to ensure
a safe building. Zoning governed by Ordinance No. 8119 provides standards and guidelines tor egulate
development projects. It is simply a guide to conserve. Section 47 disallows large commercial signage or
pylon but does not mention a building outside the boundaries of a historic site.

RA 10066 or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 was put into place calling for a cease and desist order
when the physical integrity is in danger of destruction, but physical integrity means its actual structure, not
another project. It cannot apply to the project.

Ordinance No 8119 would need a finding of fact and determine whether the project complied with the
standards set. It cannot apply here beause the court is not a trier of facts. It can only use certiorari for grave
abuse of discretion. Limtied to actual case or controversies.

Venice Charter is not treaty – it is a codification of guiding principles.

The main purpose of zoning is the protection of public safety, health, convenience, and welfare. There is no
indication that the project brings harm, danger, or hazard.

KOR estopped from questioning because they were in pari delicto.

Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se because Art 694 of the CC defines a nuisance as any act, omission
or etc. which injures or endangers, annoys or offends, shocks decency or morality, obstructs free passage,
hinders or impairs use of property.

Nuisance per se is one that is a nuisance under all circumstances. Nuisance peraccidens is one that depends
on certain conditions, existence being a question of fact.

It is not a nuisance per se.Question of nuisance per accidens is not allowed to be tried because court is not
a trier of facts

Land area 5, 556 sq m. half a heactare almost.

Principles Involved

Article 26 of the Family Code -