Mijares vs Ranada
But it was stressed out
Facts: Ten Filipino citizens who each alleged
having suffered human rights abuses such as
arbitrary detention, torture and rape in the
hands of police or military forces during the
Marcos regime, filed with the US District Court,
Hawaii, against the Estate Ferdinand E.
Marcos. Trial ensued, and subsequently a jury
rendered a Final Judgment and an award of
compensatory and exemplary damages in
favor of the plaintiff class with an award of a
total of One Billion Nine Hundred Sixty Four
Million Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Nine
Dollars and Ninety Cents ($1,964,005,859.90).
The present petitioners filed Complaint with the
Makati RTC for the enforcement of the Final
Judgment. Respondent Judge Ranada of the
Makati RTC issued the subject Order
dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
ISSUE: May petitioners successfully invoke Art
3 Sec 11 of the Constitution?
Ruling: Section 11, Article III of the
Constitution, which states that [F]ree access to
the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied
to any person by reason of poverty. Since the
provision is among the guarantees ensured by
the Bill of Rights, it certainly gives rise to a
demandable right. However, now is not the
occasion to elaborate on the parameters of this
constitutional right. Given our preceding
discussion, it is not necessary to utilize this
provision in order to grant the relief sought by
the petitioners. It is axiomatic that the
constitutionality of an act will not be resolved by
the courts if the controversy can be settled on
other grounds unless the resolution thereof is
indispensable for the determination of the case.
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees
Org vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO.,
INC. and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, respondents.
Facts: PBMEO decided to stage a mass
demonstration in front of Malacañang to
express their grievances against the alleged
abuses of the Pasig Police. Philippine
Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting
with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the
meeting, the planned demonstration was
confirmed by the union.
that the demonstration was not a strike against
the company but was in fact an exercise of the
laborers' inalienable constitutional right to
freedom of expression, freedom of speech and
freedom for petition for redress of
grievances. A second meeting took place
where the company reiterated their appeal that
while the workers may be allowed to
participate, those from the 1st and regular
shifts should not absent themselves to
participate, otherwise, they would be
dismissed. Since it was too late to cancel the
plan, the rally took place and the officers of the
PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a
violation of the ‘No Strike and No Lockout’
clause of their Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
Issue: Whether or not the workers who joined
the strike violated the CBA?
Held: No. While the Bill of Rights also protects
property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. Because
these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable,
as well as supremely precious in our society"
and the "threat of sanctions may deter their
exercise almost as potently as the
actual application of sanctions," they "need
breathing space to survive,"
permitting government regulation only "with
narrow specificity." Property and property
rights can be lost thru prescription; but human
rights are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of
civil liberties, the rights to freedom of
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the
preservation and vitality of our civil and political
institutions; and such priority "gives these
liberties the sanctity and the sanction not
permitting dubious intrusions."
Tupas vs CA
Facts: Petitioners received a copy of the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay
City on April 3, 1989, and that the motion for
reconsideration thereof was filed on April 17,
1989, or fourteen days later. The order of May
3, 1989, denying the motion was received by
the petitioners' counsel on May 9, 1989.
Instead of filing the petition for review with the
Court of Appeals within the remainder of the
15-day reglementary period, that is, on May 10,
1989, the petitioner did so only on May 23,
1989, or 14 days later. The petition was
therefore clearly tardy.
Issue: WON the respondent court erred in
dismissing the petitioners' appeal on the
ground of tardiness.
Held: No. Rules of procedure are intended to
ensure the orderly administration of justice and
the protection of substantive rights in judicial
and extrajudicial proceedings. It is a mistake to
suppose that substantive law and adjective law
are contradictory to each other or, as has often
been suggested, that enforcement of
procedural rules should never be permitted if it
will result in prejudice to the substantive rights
of the litigants. This is not exactly true; the
concept is much misunderstood. As a matter of
fact, the policy of the courts is to give effect to
both kinds of law, as complementing each
other, in the just and speedy resolution of the
dispute between the parties. Observance of
both substantive and procedural rights is
equally guaranteed by due process, whatever
the source of such rights, be it the Constitution
itself or only a statute or a rule of court.
Banco Espanol 37 P 921
Facts: Engracio Palanca was indebted to El
Banco and he had his parcel of land as security
to his debt. His debt amounted to P218,294.10.
His property is worth 75k more than what he
owe. Due to the failure of Engracio to make his
payments, El Banco executed an instrument to
mortgage Engracio‟s property. Engracio
however left for China and he never returned
til he died. Since Engracio is a non resident El
Banco has to notify Engracio about their intent
to sue him by means of publication using a
newspaper. The lower court further orderdd the
clerk of court to furnish Engracio a copy and
that it be sent to Amoy, China. The court
eventually granted El Banco petition to execute
Engracio‟s property. 7 years thereafter,
Vicente surfaced on behalf of Engracio as
his administrator to petition for
the annulment of the ruling. Vicente averred
that there had been no due process as
Engracio never received the summons.
Issue: Whether or not the procedural aspect of
the right to due process has been prejudiced.
Held: The essential of procedural fairness in
judicial proceedings are:
1. There must be a COURT or
TRIBUNAL clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it;
2. JURISDICTION must be lawfully acquired
over the person of the defendant or over the
property which is the subject of the
proceeding;
3. The defendant must be given
the OPPORTUNITY to be heard; and
4. Judgment must be rendered upon
lawful HEARING.
Conclusions stated by the court indicated that
the judgment appealed from is without error,
and the same is accordingly affirmed.
Ang Tibay vs CIR
Facts: Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang
Tibay, a leather company which supplies the
Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of
leather, Toribio caused the layoff of members
of National Labor Union (NLU). NLU averred
that Toribio’s act is not valid. The CIR, decided
the case and elevated it to the SC, but a motion
for new trial was raised by the NLU. But Ang
Tibay filed a motion for opposing the said
motion.
ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a due
process of law.
HELD: The SC ruled that there should be a
new trial in favor of NLU. The SC ruled that all
administrative bodies cannot ignore or
disregard the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process. That the The CIR
is a special court whose functions are
specifically stated in the law of its creation
which is the Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is
more an administrative board than a part of the
integrated judicial system of the nation. The
CIR is free from rigidity of certain procedural
requirements, but this not mean that it can in
justiciable cases coming before it, entirely
ignore or disregard the fundamental and
essential requirements of due process in trials
and investigations of an administrative
character. There are cardinal primary rights
which must be respected even
in proceedings of this character:
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the
right to present one’s cause and submit
evidence in support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
(3) The decision must have something to
support itself;
(4) The evidence must be substantial;
(5) The decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing; or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected;
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges
must act on its own independent consideration
of the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) The Board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its decision in
such manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various Issue involved, and the
reason for the decision rendered.
Shu vs Dee
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint before the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) charging
the respondents of falsification of two deeds of
real estate mortgage submitted to Metrobank.
Both deeds of real estate mortgage were
allegedly signed by the petitioner, one in his
own name while the other was on behalf of 3A
Apparel Corporation. NBI filed a complaint with
the City Prosecutor of Makati charging the
respondents of the crime of forgery and
falsification of public documents. The
respondents argued in their counter-affidavits
that they were denied their right to due process
during the NBI investigation because the
agency never required them and Metrobank to
submit the standard sample signatures of the
petitioner for comparison.
The findings contained in the questioned
documents report only covered the sample
signatures unilaterally submitted by the
petitioner as compared with the signatures
appearing on the two deeds of real estate
mortgage. An examination of the signatures of
the petitioner which appear in several
documents in Metrobank’s possession
revealed that his signatures in the questioned
deeds are genuine.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents were
denied of their right to due process during the
NBI investigation.
HELD: NO. The Court held that the functions of
this agency are merely investigatory
and informational in nature. It has no judicial or
quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of
granting any relief to any party. It cannot even
determine probable cause. The NBI is
an investigative agency whose findings are
merely recommendatory. It undertakes
investigation of crimes upon its own initiative or
as public welfare may require in accordance
with its mandate. There was no denial of the
respondents’ due process right could have
taken place as the NBI’s findings were still
subject to the prosecutor’s and the Secretary of
Justice’s actions for purposes of finding the
existence of probable cause. The respondents
were not likewise denied their right to due
process when the NBI issued the questioned
documents report. There was no categorical
finding in the questioned documents report that
the respondents falsified the documents.
GMA NETWORK, INC., et al v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS
Facts: Resolution 9615 of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) changed the airtime
limitations for political campaign from “per
station” basis, as used during the 2007 and
2010 elections, to a “total aggregate” basis for
the 2013. Various broadcast networks
questioned the interpretation of the COMELEC
on the ground that the provisions are
oppressive and violative of the constitutional
guarantees of freedom of expression and of the
press. Collectively, they question the
constitutionality of Section 9 (a), which
provides for an “aggregate total” airtime instead
of the previous “per station” airtime for political
campaigns or advertisements, and also
required prior COMELEC approval for
candidates' television and radio guestings and
appearances.
ISSUE: Does Section 9(a) of Comelec
Resolution No. 9615 on airtime limit violate the
constitutional guaranty of freedom of
expression, of speech and of the press?
RULING: Yes, Section 9(a) of COMELEC
Resolution No. 9615, with its adoption of
the “aggregate-based” airtime limits
unreasonably restricts the guaranteed
freedom of speech and of the press. The
assailed rule on “aggregate-based” airtime
limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly
restricts and constrains the ability of candidates
and political parties to reach out and
communicate with the people. Here, the
adverted reason for imposing the “aggregate-
based” airtime limits – leveling the playing field
– does not constitute a compelling state
interest which would justify such a substantial
restriction on the freedom of candidates and
political parties to communicate their ideas,
philosophies, platforms and programs of
government.
Gov’t of Hongkong vs Olalia
FACTS:Respondent Muñoz was charged of 3
counts of offences of “accepting an advantage
as agent”, and 7 counts of conspiracy to
defraud, punishable by the common law of
Hongkong. The Hongkong Depoartment of
Justice requested DOJ for the provisional
arrest of respondent Muñoz; the DOJ forward
the request to the NBI then to RTC. On the
same day, NBI agents arrested him.
Respondent filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for preliminary mandatory
injunction and writ of habeas corpus
questioning the validity of the order of
arrest. The CA declared the arrest void. Hence
this petition by the Hongkong Department of
Justice thru DOJ. DOJ filed a petition for
certiorari in this Court and sustained the validity
of the arrest.
Hongkong Administrative Region then filed in
the RTC petition for extradition and arrest of
respondent. Meanwhile, respondent filed a
petition for bail, which was opposed by the
petitioner, initially the RTC denied the petition
holding that there is no Philippine Law granting
bail in extradition cases and that private
responded is a “flight risk”. Motion for
reconsideration was filed by the respondent,
which was granted. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not right to bail can be avail
in extradition cases.
HELD: EXTRADITION, is defined as the
removal of an accused from the Philippines
with the object of placing him at the disposal of
foreign authorities to enable the requesting
state or government to hold him in connection
with criminal investigation directed against him
or execution of a penalty imposed on him under
the penal and criminal law of the requesting
state or government. Thus characterized as the
right of the a foreign power, created by treaty
to demand the surrender of one accused or
convicted of a crimes within its territorial
jurisdiction, and the correlative obligation of the
other state to surrender him to the demanding
state.
The extradited may be subject to detention as
may be necessary step in the process of
extradition, but the length of time in the
detention should be reasonable.
In the case at bar, the record show that the
respondent, Muñoz has been detained for 2
years without being convicted in Hongkong.
The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring
the individual his right to liberty and due
process and should not therefor deprive the
extraditee of his right to bail PROVIDED that
certain standards for the grant is satisfactorily
met. In other words there should be “CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE”.
However in the case at bar, the respondent
was not able to show and clear and convincing
evidence that he be entitled to bail. Thus the
case is remanded in the court for the
determination and otherwise, should order the
cancellation of his bond and his immediate
detention.