Navales vs Navales

Article 36: Psychological Incapacity

In 1986, Nilda and Reynaldo met in a local bar where Nilda was a waitress. Because of
his fear that Nilda may be wed to an American, Reynaldo proposed to Nilda and they
got married in 1988. Reynaldo is aware that Nilda has an illegitimate child out of
wedlock. The 1st year of their marriage went well until Nilda began to work when she
neglected some of her duties as a wife. She later worked as a gym instructor and
according to Reynaldo’s allegations; her job makes her flirt with her male clients. She
also drives home with other guys even though Reynaldo would be there to fetch her.
She also projected herself as single. And she refused to have a child with Reynaldo
because that would only destroy her figure. Reynaldo then filed a petition to have their
marriage be annulled. He presented her cousin as a witness that attested that Nilda was
flirting with other guys even with Reynaldo’s presence. Reynaldo also presented the
findings of a psychologist who concluded that based on Nilda’s acts, Nilda is a
nymphomaniac, who has a borderline personality, a social deviant, an alcoholic,
and suffering from anti-social personality disorder, among others, which illnesses are
incurable and are the causes of Nilda’s psychological incapacity to perform her marital
role as wife to Reynaldo. Nilda on her part attacked Reynaldo’s allegations. She said
that it is actually Reynaldo who is a womanizer and that in fact she has filed a case of
concubinage against him which was still pending. She also said that she only needs the
job in order to support herself because Reynaldo is not supporting her. She also
showed proof that she projected herself as a married woman and that she handles an
aerobics class which is exclusive to females only. The RTC and the CA ruled in favor of
Reynaldo.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Reynaldo and Nilda is null and void on the
ground of Nilda’s psychological incapacity.
HELD: The petition must be granted because the State’s participation in this case is
wanting. There were no other pleadings, motions, or position papers filed by the Public
Prosecutor or OSG; and no controverting evidence presented by them before the
judgment was rendered. And even if the SC would consider the case based on the
merits, the petition would still be granted. The acts presented by Reynaldo by
themselves are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious,
incurable or grave as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code. Article 36
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume
basic marital obligations. Mere “difficulty,” “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of
marital obligations or “ill will” on the part of the spouse is different from “incapacity”
rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness. Indeed, irreconcilable
differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and
the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article
36, as the same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the
essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is
contemplated by said rule. The SC also finds the finding of the psychological expert to
be insufficient to prove the PI of Nilda. The testimonies presented by people the expert
interviewed were not concretely established as the fact as to how those people came up
with their respective information was not as well shown. There is no proof as well that
Nilda had had sex with different guys – a condition for nymphomia. There being doubt
as to Nilda’s PI the SC ruled that this case be resolved in favor of the validity of
marriage.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v CA (Environmental

Law)

Laguna Lake Development Authority v CA

GR No. 110120
March 16, 1994

FACTS:

The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan was maintaining
an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, as required under Presidential Decree N o. 1586, and
clearance from LLDA as required under Republic Act N o. 4850 and issued a CEASE and DESIST
ORDER (CDO) for the City Government of Caloocan to stop the use of the dumpsite.

ISSUES:

1. Does the LLDA and its amendatory laws, have the authority to entertain the
complaint against the dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay
Camarin authorized by the City Government of Caloocan?
2. Does the LLDA have the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order?

APPLICABLE LAWS:

• Executive Order N o. 927 series of 1983 which provides, thus: Sec. 4. Additional Powers
and Functions. The authority shall have the following powers and functions: (d) Make,
alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution specifying the
conditions and the time within which such discontinuance must be accomplished

• As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the

Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases w here the special law provides
for another forum

RULING:

1. YES, LLDA has authority. It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a
specialized administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic Act No.
4850 and its amendatory law s to carry out and make effective the declared national
policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the
Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities
of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan with due regard and adequate
provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of
human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances,
deterioration and pollution. Under such a broad grant and power and authority, the LLDA,
by virtue of its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of
the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from
the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas.

2. YES, pursuant to EO 927 Section 4. While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative

agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law , it is likewise a settled
rule that an administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the
exercise of its ex press powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers
under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution
cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and
desist order" is, perforce, implied. NOTE: HOWEVER, writs of mandamus and
injunction are beyond the power of the LLDA to issue.

The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting vital public interests" gives
vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or
the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16 which provides:

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the correlative duty of non-
impairment. This is but in consonance with the declared policy of the state "to protect and promote
the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them."28 It is to be borne in
mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma
Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize health as a fundamental human right. 29

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA

Natural Resources and Environmental Laws; Statutory Construction

GR No. 120865-71; Dec. 7 1995

FACTS:
The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through Republic Act No.
4850. It was granted, inter alia, exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all
surface water for any project or activity in or affecting the said region including navigation,
construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.
Then came RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipalities in the Laguna
Lake region interpreted its provisions to mean that the newly passed law gave municipal
governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal
waters.
ISSUE:
Who should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the
issuance of permits for fishing privileges is concerned, the LLDA or the towns and
municipalities comprising the region?

HELD:
LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters because the charter of the LLDA prevails over the
Local Government Code of 1991. The said charter constitutes a special law, while the latter is
a general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation
which is a general law, cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. The special law is
to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances
forcing a contrary conclusion.
In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police power for the
purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna Lake region, as opposed to the Local
Government Code, which grants powers to municipalities to issue fishing permits for
revenue purposes.

Thus it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail over the Local
Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.

TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION Case Digest

TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R No. 163419. February 13, 2008

FACTS: TSPI Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the corporation
Union for the increase of salary for the latter’s members for the year 2000 to 2002 starting from
January 2000. thus, the increased in salary was materialized on January 1, 2000. However, on
October 6, 2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage and production Board raised daily minimum wage
from P 223.50 to P 250.00 starting November 1, 2000. Conformably, the wages of the 17
probationary employees were increased to P250.00 and became regular employees therefore
receiving another 10% increase in salary. In January 2001, TSPIC implemented the new wage rates
as mandated by the CBA. As a result, the nine employees who were senior to the 17 recently
regularized employees, received less wages. On January 19, 2001, TSPIC’s HRD notified the 24
employees who are private respondents, that due to an error in the automated payroll system, they
were overpaid and the overpayment would be deducted from their salaries starting February 2001.
The Union on the other hand, asserted that there was no error and the deduction of the alleged
overpayment constituted diminution of pay.

ISSUE: Whether the alleged overpayment constitutes diminution of pay as alleged by the Union.

RULING: Yes, because it is considered that Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by unions
and their employers are binding upon the parties and be acted in strict compliance therewith. Thus,
the CBA in this case is the law between the employers and their employees.

Therefore, there was no overpayment when there was an increase of salary for the members of the
union simultaneous with the increasing of minimum wage for workers in the National Capital Region.
The CBA should be followed thus, the senior employees who were first promoted as regular
employees shall be entitled for the increase in their salaries and the same with lower rank workers.