Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 60 results on the current subject filter

Title	Reference #s	Summary	Background	Subject Matter
Villanueva vs. Judicial and Bar Council (7th April 2015)	755 SCRA 182, 757 Phil. 534, G.R. No. 211833	The case involves a petition filed by Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva challenging the constitutionality of the Judicial and Bar Council's (JBC) policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge before qualifying for promotion to a second-level court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the JBC's policy is constitutional and within its discretion, but directed the JBC to publish its policies for transparency.	Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva was appointed as a first-level court judge in 2012. In 2013, he applied for promotion to several Regional Trial Court (RTC) positions but was disqualified by the JBC due to its policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge. Villanueva challenged this policy, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated his rights to equal protection and due process.	Philosophy of Law
Leus vs. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove (28th January 2015)	748 SCRA 378, 752 PHIL. 186, G.R. No. 187226	The Supreme Court ruled that pregnancy out of wedlock by an unmarried school employee is not a valid ground for dismissal as it does not constitute "disgraceful or immoral conduct" under secular standards, despite the employer being a Catholic educational institution.	This case revolves around the dismissal of a non-teaching staff member from a Catholic school after becoming pregnant out of wedlock, leading to a legal battle over whether such circumstance constitutes valid grounds for termination of employment.	Philosophy of Law
Araullo vs. Aquino (1st July 2014)	728 SCRA 1, 737 Phil. 457, G.R. No. 209287, G.R. NO. 209135, G.R. NO. 209136, G.R. NO. 209155, G.R. NO. 209164, G.R. NO. 209260, G.R. NO. 209442, G.R. NO. 209517, G.R. NO. 209569	This case involves the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) implemented by the administration of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. Petitioners challenged the legality of DAP, arguing that it violated constitutional provisions on government spending. The Supreme Court ruled that key parts of the DAP were unconstitutional, specifically those allowing cross-border transfers and funding projects not covered by the General Appropriations Act (GAA).	The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was a mechanism introduced by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) under Secretary Florencio Abad. It allowed the executive branch to pool savings from various government agencies and realign them to other projects to accelerate economic growth. However, petitioners argued that it violated the constitutional power of Congress over appropriations.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (8th April 2014)	721 SCRA 146, 732 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 204819, G.R. No. 204934, G.R. No. 204957, G.R. No. 204988, G.R. No. 205003, G.R. No. 205043, G.R. No. 205138, G.R. No. 205478, G.R. No. 205491, G.R. No. 205720, G.R. No. 206355, G.R. No. 207111, G.R. No. 207172, G.R. No. 207563	This consolidated case involves multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates various constitutional rights including the right to life, health, religious freedom, and due process. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, declaring certain provisions of the RH Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional while upholding the law's general validity.	The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was enacted to address population growth and improve reproductive health in the Philippines. It mandates government provision of reproductive health services and supplies, including contraceptives, and requires sex education in schools. The law generated significant controversy and strong opposition, particularly from religious groups. Shortly after its enactment, various groups filed petitions challenging its constitutionality.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Pryce Corporation vs. China Banking Corporation (18th February 2014)	716 SCRA 207, 727 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 172302	This case involves a dispute over the corporate rehabilitation of Pryce Corporation and the conflicting decisions issued by two divisions of the Court of Appeals regarding the approval of its rehabilitation plan. The Supreme Court ultimately resolved whether the principle of res judicata applied and if a hearing was necessary before the issuance of a stay order in corporate rehabilitation cases.	Pryce Corporation filed for corporate rehabilitation in 2004. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati found the petition sufficient and issued a stay order. The rehabilitation receiver submitted an amended plan, which the RTC approved. China Banking Corporation (China Bank) and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) challenged the approval, leading to conflicting rulings in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court resolved the issue in favor of Pryce Corporation.	Philosophy of Law
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (11th February 2014)	727 Phil. 28, G.R. No. 203335, G.R. No. 203299, G.R. No. 203306, G.R. No. 203359, G.R. No. 203378, G.R. No. 203391, G.R. No. 203407, G.R. No. 203440, G.R. No. 203453, G.R. No. 203454, G.R. No. 203469, G.R. No. 203501, G.R. No. 203501, G.R. No. 203515, G.R. No. 203518	These consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, arguing that certain sections violate constitutional rights related to freedom of expression, due process, privacy, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court partially upheld and partially struck down provisions of the law after extensive review.	The Cybercrime Prevention Act was enacted to regulate cyberspace activities, aiming to address cybercrimes while recognizing the internet's benefits. Petitioners argue that the law’s means to regulate cyberspace activities infringe upon constitutional rights. The government asserts the law is a reasonable measure to maintain order in cyberspace, prevent wrongdoings, and protect systems from attacks. A Temporary Restraining Order was initially issued and later extended, preventing the law's implementation pending adjudication.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Villareal vs. People (1st February 2012)	664 SCRA 519, 680 Phil. 527, G.R. No. 151258, G.R. No. 154954, G.R. No. 155101, G.R. No. 178057, G.R. No. 178080	This case involves the death of Leonardo "Lenny" Villa during a fraternity initiation rite conducted by the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity at Ateneo de Manila University. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused fraternity members were guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, modifying the Court of Appeals' decision which had acquitted most of the accused and convicted only a few for slight physical injuries.	Lenny Villa, a law student at Ateneo de Manila University, died during the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity in February 1991. The initiation involved physical beatings and psychological pressure, leading to Villa's death from cardiac failure due to multiple traumatic injuries. The case led to the enactment of the Anti-Hazing Law in 1995.	Philosophy of Law
Air Transportation Office vs. Ramos (23rd February 2011)	644 SCRA 36, 659 Phil. 104, G.R. No. 159402	The case involves a dispute over the payment for a portion of land owned by the Ramos spouses, which was used by the Air Transportation Office (ATO) for the Loakan Airport. The ATO failed to pay despite a deed of sale, leading to a lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled that the ATO, being engaged in proprietary functions, is not immune from suit and must pay the Ramos spouses for the land.	The Ramos spouses discovered that part of their land was being used by the ATO for the Loakan Airport. They agreed to sell the land to the ATO, but the ATO failed to pay. The Ramos spouses filed a lawsuit, and the lower courts ruled in their favor. The ATO appealed, invoking state immunity.	Philosophy of Law
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections (15th February 2011)	643 SCRA 150, 663 Phil. 496, G.R. No. 176951	This case involves the consolidation of several petitions challenging the constitutionality of 16 Cityhood Laws enacted by the Philippine Congress. The Supreme Court, in a series of decisions and resolutions, ultimately upheld the validity of these laws, determining that they complied with the requirements for the creation of cities as provided in the Local Government Code and the Constitution.	The controversy began when Congress passed 16 laws converting municipalities into cities. These laws were challenged on the ground that they did not comply with the requirements of the Local Government Code, particularly the income requirement. The Supreme Court's decisions in these cases have evolved over time, marked by several reversals and shifts in the Court's composition.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Bayan Muna vs. Romulo (1st February 2011)	641 SCRA 244, 656 Phil. 246, G.R. No. 159618	The case challenges the validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement which protects US and Filipino officials, employees, military personnel and nationals from being surrendered to the International Criminal Court (ICC) without the express consent of their respective governments.	The case stems from the Philippines' signing of the Rome Statute establishing the ICC on December 28, 2000, followed by the execution of a bilateral Non-Surrender Agreement with the US on May 13, 2003 through an Exchange of Notes.	Philosophy of Law
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections (8th April 2010)	618 SCRA 32, 632 Phil. 32, G.R. No. 190582	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad, an LGBT organization, allowing them to participate in the party-list system. The Court held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) violated the constitutional rights of Ang Ladlad by denying their registration based on moral and religious grounds, emphasizing the importance of equal protection, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination.	Ang Ladlad, an organization representing the LGBT community, applied for accreditation under the party-list system. The COMELEC denied their application, citing moral grounds and religious beliefs. Ang Ladlad challenged this decision, arguing that the denial violated their constitutional rights.	Philosophy of Law
Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP) (14th October 2008)	568 SCRA 402, 589 Phil. 387, G.R. No. 183591, G.R. No. 183752, G.R. No. 183893, G.R. No. 183951, G.R. No. 183962	This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), focusing on issues of public consultation, right to information, and the extent of executive power in peace negotiations, ultimately finding the MOA-AD unconstitutional.	The MOA-AD was a proposed agreement aimed at resolving the armed conflict in Mindanao by expanding the autonomous region and granting significant powers to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). However, concerns arose regarding the lack of transparency and potential constitutional violations.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Interport Resources Corporation (6th October 2008)	567 SCRA 354, 588 Phil. 651, G.R. No. 135808	The case involves the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigating Interport Resources Corporation (IRC) and its directors for alleged violations of the Revised Securities Act, particularly insider trading and failure to disclose material information. The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of IRC, declaring the SEC's actions void due to the absence of implementing rules. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that the SEC had the authority to investigate and that the absence of implementing rules did not invalidate the provisions of the Revised Securities Act.	In 1994, IRC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Ganda Holdings Berhad (GHB) to acquire 100% of Ganda Energy Holdings, Inc. (GEHI). IRC also planned to acquire 67% of Philippine Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI). The SEC alleged that IRC failed to disclose these negotiations promptly and that some directors traded IRC shares using insider information. The SEC initiated an investigation, but the Court of Appeals issued an injunction, halting the SEC's actions.	Philosophy of Law
In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet Published in Malaya Dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007 (8th August 2008)	583 Phil. 391, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC	This case involves a contempt charge against Amado Macasaet, a newspaper columnist, for publishing articles alleging bribery within the Supreme Court. The Court found Macasaet guilty of indirect contempt for publishing false and baseless allegations, which were deemed to undermine the integrity of the judiciary.	Amado Macasaet, a columnist for the newspaper Malaya, published a series of articles in September 2007 alleging that a Supreme Court Justice had received bribes in connection with a case involving a Filipino-Chinese businessman. The articles were based on information from confidential sources and claimed that five boxes containing ₱10 million were delivered to the Court. The Court initiated contempt proceedings against Macasaet for publishing unverified allegations that damaged the Court's reputation.	Philosophy of Law
Sevilla vs. Cardenas (31st July 2006)	497 SCRA 428, 529 Phil. 419, G.R. No. 167684	This case involves a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Jaime O. Sevilla against Carmelita N. Cardenas, alleging that their marriage was void due to the absence of a valid marriage license. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan were insufficient to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license, and thus, the marriage was presumed valid.	Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas were married in civil rites on May 19, 1969, and in a church ceremony on May 31, 1969. Jaime later filed a complaint for the nullity of their marriage, claiming that no marriage license was issued for their union. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage null and void, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to the present petition.	Philosophy of Law
Estrada vs. Escritor (22nd June 2006)	492 SCRA 1, 525 Phil. 110, A.M. No. P-02-1651	This resolution addresses an administrative complaint against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, for alleged disgraceful and immoral conduct due to her cohabitation with a man not her husband, which contravenes Philippine law but aligns with the practices of her religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Reaffirming its prior ruling establishing benevolent neutrality and the compelling state interest test as the applicable framework, the Supreme Court, after remand for evidentiary hearing, found that the State (represented by the Solicitor General) failed to prove a compelling interest sufficient to override Escritor's constitutionally protected right to religious freedom and failed to demonstrate the use of the least restrictive means. Consequently, the Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Escritor.	The case arose from a sworn letter-complaint filed by Alejandro Estrada against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, alleging that her living arrangement with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.—a man married to another woman—constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct tarnishing the image of the judiciary. Escritor, a widow whose own husband was previously estranged, admitted the cohabitation but claimed it conformed to the religious doctrines and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses, formalized through a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" approved by her congregation, as Quilapio faced legal impediments to remarriage. This created a conflict between state laws penalizing such relationships and Escritor's constitutional right to religious freedom.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (3rd May 2006)	489 SCRA 160, 522 Phil. 705, G.R. No. 171396, G.R. No. 171409, G.R. No. 171485, G.R. No. 171483, G.R. No. 171400, G.R. No. 171489, G.R. No. 171424	This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017 and General Order (G.O.) No. 5, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2006, which declared a state of national emergency. The Supreme Court addressed the scope of presidential powers during emergencies, the validity of the declaration, and the actions taken pursuant to it, ultimately finding portions of the issuances unconstitutional while upholding the President's calling-out power.	In February 2006, amidst alleged conspiracies to destabilize the government, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, directing the AFP and Philippine National Police (PNP) to maintain law and order, prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence. These actions led to arrests, dispersal of rallies, and a raid on a newspaper office, prompting several petitions questioning the constitutionality of the President's actions.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (20th April 2006)	488 SCRA 1, 522 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 169777, G.R. No. 169659, G.R. No. 169660, G.R. No. 169667, G.R. No. 169834, G.R. No. 171246	The Supreme Court partially granted petitions challenging Executive Order No. 464, declaring Sections 2(b) and 3 void while upholding Sections 1 and 2(a). The case examined the constitutionality of E.O. 464 which required executive officials to secure presidential consent before appearing in congressional inquiries, balancing executive privilege against Congress' power of inquiry and the public's right to information.	The case arose from several Senate investigations where executive officials failed to appear, citing E.O. 464 which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued requiring executive department officials to secure presidential consent before appearing in congressional inquiries. This led to multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 464.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Floro, Jr. (31st March 2006)	486 SCRA 66, 520 Phil. 591, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988	A landmark administrative case involving a Regional Trial Court judge who was ultimately relieved of his functions due to a medically disabling condition of the mind, while being awarded back wages on equitable grounds despite his role in delaying case resolution.	The case centers on Judge Florentino V. Floro Jr.'s fitness to serve as a judge of the Regional Trial Court. After withdrawing his first application in 1995 due to concerning psychological evaluations, he reapplied in 1998 and was appointed despite similar psychological concerns, mainly due to his impressive academic background. Upon his own request for an audit in March 1999, various issues about his conduct came to light, leading to his preventive suspension by July 1999, merely eight months into his position. The Office of the Court Administrator filed administrative charges against him, encompassing 13 different allegations ranging from procedural violations to fundamental concerns about his mental fitness, particularly given his proclaimed beliefs in psychic powers, dwarf friends, and unusual practices like wearing colored robes in court. The case became a landmark decision addressing the intersection of mental fitness, judicial temperament, and the limits of personal beliefs in judicial service.	Philosophy of Law
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita (1st September 2005)	469 SCRA 14, 506 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 168056, G.R. No. 168207, G.R. No. 168461, G.R. No. 168463, G.R. No. 168730	This case involves a constitutional challenge against Republic Act No. 9337 (Expanded Value Added Tax Law), particularly provisions allowing the President to increase the VAT rate from 10% to 12% based on specific economic conditions. The Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality, ruling that it did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power.	Republic Act No. 9337 (Expanded VAT Law) was enacted to address the Philippines’ fiscal deficit by increasing government revenue through an expanded VAT system. Several petitions challenged its constitutionality, particularly the provisions authorizing the President to increase the VAT rate, arguing that this was an undue delegation of legislative power.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Herrera vs. Alba (15th June 2005)	460 SCRA 197, 499 Phil. 185, G.R. No. 148220	This case involves a petition for review to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's orders directing Rosendo Herrera to undergo DNA paternity testing. The petitioner, Rosendo Herrera, opposed the DNA test, arguing it violated his right against self-incrimination and lacked legal acceptance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions and recognizing DNA testing as a valid probative tool in paternity cases.	DNA paternity testing is a valid and admissible method to establish filiation in paternity suits, provided that proper procedures are followed, and it does not violate the right against self-incrimination.	Philosophy of Law
Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan (19th October 2004)	440 SCRA 578, 483 Phil. 601, G.R. No. 132164	The case involves Dr. Allyson Belagan, a Superintendent of the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS), who was accused of sexual harassment by Magdalena Gapuz and Ligaya Annawi. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) found Belagan guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC's decision, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court reinstated the CSC's decision but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay, considering Belagan's long service and unblemished record.	Dr. Allyson Belagan, a Superintendent of DECS in Baguio City, was accused of sexual harassment by Magdalena Gapuz, a private school teacher, and Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher. Gapuz alleged that Belagan kissed her during an inspection of her school premises, while Annawi accused him of multiple instances of sexual harassment and other administrative malfeasances. The DECS conducted an investigation and found Belagan guilty, leading to his dismissal. The CSC affirmed the DECS decision regarding Gapuz but dismissed Annawi's complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC's decision, prompting the CSC to appeal to the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
Tecson vs. Commission on Elections (3rd March 2004)	424 SCRA 277, 468 Phil. 421, G.R. No. 161434, G.R. No. 161634, G.R. No. 161824	The case revolves around the disqualification of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) as a presidential candidate in the 2004 elections due to questions regarding his citizenship. Petitioners alleged that FPJ was not a natural-born Filipino citizen, but the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petitions, ruling that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the disqualification case.	The case arose when Victorino X. Fornier filed a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ from running for president, alleging that FPJ was not a natural-born Filipino citizen. The COMELEC dismissed the petition, and Fornier, along with other petitioners, elevated the case to the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections (21st January 2004)	420 SCRA 438, 465 Phil. 385, G.R. No. 148334	The case involves a petition for prohibition filed by Arturo Tolentino and Arturo Mojica against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Senators Ralph Recto and Gregorio Honasan. Petitioners sought to nullify COMELEC Resolutions proclaiming the winners of the 2001 senatorial elections, particularly the 13th placer, Honasan, who was to serve an unexpired term. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the special election was validly held and that COMELEC’s failure to give formal notice did not invalidate the election.	Following the appointment of Senator Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President in 2001, a Senate vacancy arose. The Senate passed a resolution calling for a special election to fill the vacancy, to be held simultaneously with the May 14, 2001, regular elections. The 13th placer in the senatorial race would serve the unexpired term. Petitioners challenged the validity of the special election, arguing that COMELEC failed to comply with legal requirements.	Philosophy of Law
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (21st July 2003)	407 SCRA 10, 454 Phil. 504, G.R. No. 104768	This jurisprudential analysis scrutinizes the Republic of the Philippines' petition for certiorari aimed at overturning the Sandiganbayan's dismissal of a forfeiture case against Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano. The focal issue pertains to the jurisdictional authority of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) concerning its investigative and prosecutorial powers over military officials allegedly involved in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, particularly absent definitive affiliations with the Marcos administration.	In the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution, President Corazon Aquino established the PCGG to spearhead the recovery of assets unlawfully acquired during the Marcos regime. The AFP Anti-Graft Board, under the PCGG's directive, initiated an inquiry into the financial dealings of Major General Ramas, uncovering properties and assets allegedly disproportionate to his lawful income. The investigation extended to Elizabeth Dimaano, purportedly Ramas' mistress, in whose possession substantial monetary sums and military-grade equipment were discovered. This led to a forfeiture petition grounded on the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Forfeiture Law (RA No. 1379).	Philosophy of Law
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (19th November 2001)	369 SCRA 394, 421 Phil. 290, G.R. No. 148560	The case involves former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada’s constitutional challenge against Republic Act No. 7080 (the Plunder Law), arguing that it is vague and violates his rights to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is constitutional, upholding the validity of the plunder charges against him.	Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the former President of the Philippines, was charged with plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 for allegedly amassing ill-gotten wealth exceeding Php 50 million through various illegal means. He challenged the law’s constitutionality, claiming it was vague, abolished the requirement of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and did away with the element of mens rea.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Cruz vs. Secretaryof Environment and Natural Resources (6th December 2000)	347 SCRA 128, 400 Phil. 904, G.R. No. 135385	This case involves a constitutional challenge to Republic Act No. 8371, also known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. The petitioners, led by retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz, argued that the law was unconstitutional because it granted ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples, contrary to the Regalian Doctrine. The Supreme Court issued a deadlocked vote (7-7), resulting in the dismissal of the petition and the upholding of the law.	The case was brought by legal scholars and constitutionalists who questioned whether indigenous groups could hold ownership rights over natural resources traditionally deemed as part of the State’s patrimony under the Regalian Doctrine. The petitioners sought a declaration of unconstitutionality for various provisions of the IPRA, arguing that they violated the 1987 Constitution’s provisions on State ownership of public lands and natural resources.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Velasco (13th September 2000)	340 SCRA 207, 394 Phil. 517, G.R. No. 127444	A case that examines the doctrine of double jeopardy in the context of a government appeal from an acquittal, ultimately reaffirming that an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy.	In San Ildefonso, Bulacan, a shooting incident resulted in the death of Alex Vinculado and serious injuries to his twin brother Levi and uncle Miguel Vinculado Jr. Honorato Galvez (town mayor) and Godofredo Diego (municipal employee) were charged with murder, frustrated murder, and illegal possession of firearms. After trial, Diego was found guilty while Galvez was acquitted. The government challenged the acquittal.	Philosophy of Law
Miranda vs. Abaya (28th July 1999)	311 SCRA 617, 370 Phil. 642, G.R. No. 136351	The Supreme Court ruled on the validity of the substitution of Joel G. Miranda as mayoralty candidate in Santiago City after his father, Jose "Pempe" Miranda, was disqualified. The Court held that substitution was not allowed because Jose Miranda’s certificate of candidacy was denied due course and canceled, making his candidacy void ab initio. Consequently, the votes for Joel Miranda were considered stray, and the issue of succession was governed by the Local Government Code.	Jose "Pempe" Miranda, the incumbent mayor of Santiago City, sought reelection despite having already served the maximum of three consecutive terms. Antonio M. Abaya filed a petition to deny due course and/or cancel Jose Miranda’s certificate of candidacy, which the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) granted on May 5, 1998. Despite this, Joel G. Miranda filed a certificate of candidacy on May 6, 1998, claiming to be a substitute candidate for his father.	Philosophy of Law
Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice (19th January 1999)	297 SCRA 754, 361 Phil. 73, G.R. No. 132601	A landmark case addressing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to temporarily restrain the execution of a death convict and the constitutional limitations on Congress's power to impose the death penalty.	Leo Echegaray was sentenced to death under R.A. 7659. The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on his execution to give Congress time to review the death penalty law. Public respondents challenged the Court's jurisdiction to issue such TRO.	Civil Procedure I Philosophy of Law
Apiag vs. Cantero (12th February 1997)	268 SCRA 47, 335 Phil. 511, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070	This administrative case involves Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero, who was charged with gross misconduct for allegedly committing bigamy and falsification of public documents. The complainants, Maria Apiag (his first wife) and their two children, accused him of abandoning them and marrying another woman without legally annulling his first marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that while the judge’s personal conduct was improper, his actions did not constitute gross misconduct in office, and the case was dismissed due to his death prior to the decision.	The case stems from a failed love affair between Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero and Maria Apiag, who married in 1947 and had two children. Judge Cantero later abandoned his family and married another woman, Nieves Ygay, without legally annulling his first marriage. The complainants accused him of bigamy and falsification of public documents, as he had listed Nieves Ygay as his spouse in official documents.	Philosophy of Law
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan (20th September 1996)	330 Phil. 678, 262 SCRA 122, G.R. No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113	A landmark case concerning attorney-client privilege, where ACCRA lawyers challenged the Sandiganbayan's denial of their exclusion from a complaint involving alleged ill-gotten wealth, asserting their right to maintain client confidentiality even when asked to reveal client identities.	The case originated when the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a complaint on July 31, 1987, before the Sandiganbayan against Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr. and several others, including lawyers from the ACCRA Law Firm, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. The ACCRA lawyers - Teodoro Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. Escueta, and Paraja G. Hayudini - had acted as nominal stockholders for various corporations as part of their legal services to clients. When the PCGG filed a Third Amended Complaint in 1991, they excluded one of the ACCRA lawyers, Raul S. Roco, based on his alleged undertaking to reveal the identity of the principals for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder. The remaining ACCRA lawyers sought the same treatment, but the PCGG conditioned their exclusion on three requirements: disclosure of their client's identity, submission of documents proving the lawyer-client relationship, and submission of their deeds of assignment. The lawyers refused, citing attorney-client privilege, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court, raising fundamental questions about the scope of attorney-client privilege and the equal protection of law.	Philosophy of Law
Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections (18th September 1995)	248 SCRA 300, 318 Phil. 329, G.R. No. 119976	This case revolves around the disqualification of Imelda Romualdez-Marcos from running as a congressional candidate for the First District of Leyte due to the residency requirement under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled against her, leading to a legal battle before the Supreme Court, which ultimately decided in her favor.	Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Representative of the First District of Leyte, declaring seven months of residency. Her political opponent, Cirilo Roy Montejo, filed a petition to disqualify her on the grounds of failing to meet the one-year residency requirement. Marcos later amended her COC, stating that she had been a resident "since childhood," but the COMELEC refused to accept this correction and ruled her disqualified. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the COMELEC's decision.	Philosophy of Law
Santos vs. Court of Appeals (4th January 1995)	240 SCRA 20, 310 Phil. 21, G.R. No. 112019	The case involves a petition for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, which allows for the declaration of a marriage as void if one party is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill marital obligations. The petitioner, Leouel Santos, sought to nullify his marriage to Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos, claiming she was psychologically incapacitated due to her failure to return home or communicate with him for over five years. The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the circumstances did not meet the stringent requirements for psychological incapacity under Article 36.	Leouel Santos and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos married in 1986. After the birth of their child, marital issues arose, primarily due to interference from Julia's parents. Julia left for the U.S. in 1988 and failed to return or maintain communication with Leouel. Leouel filed for nullity of marriage under Article 36, claiming Julia's behavior demonstrated psychological incapacity. The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, leading to this Supreme Court review.	Philosophy of Law
Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. (30th July 1993)	224 SCRA 792, 296 Phil. 694, G.R. No. 101083	This case presents a seminal issue in environmental law—whether present and future generations possess a legally enforceable right to a balanced and healthful ecology. A group of minors, through their legal representatives, sought judicial intervention against the continued issuance and renewal of timber license agreements (TLAs), arguing that rampant deforestation infringed upon their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, articulating a robust doctrine of intergenerational responsibility and affirming that environmental rights are legally cognizable and enforceable.	The case originated from Civil Case No. 90-777 filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati by a group of minors, represented by their parents, along with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. They sued then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., for failing to cancel TLAs, which they claimed led to massive deforestation, causing environmental destruction. The RTC dismissed the case, ruling that it involved a political question and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulong (27th May 1993)	222 SCRA 644, G.R. No. 99327	The Supreme Court upheld the decision of Ateneo de Manila University to expel several law students for their participation in a hazing incident that resulted in the death of a student. The Court ruled that the university did not violate the students' right to due process and that the expulsion was justified under the university's disciplinary rules and academic freedom.	The case arose from a hazing incident during the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis fraternity at Ateneo Law School in February 1991. The hazing resulted in the death of Leonardo Villa and serious injuries to another student, Bienvenido Marquez. The university conducted an investigation and expelled the students involved. The expelled students challenged their dismissal, claiming a violation of due process.	Philosophy of Law
Jain vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People (28th September 1984)	132 SCRA 359, 217 Phil. 347, No. L-63129	Wayne Jain was convicted of theft for substituting train receipts for sugar canes belonging to Tomasa Bermejo, intending to claim the proceeds. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, clarifying that theft necessitates physical taking of the property. Jain's actions, involving document manipulation rather than physical appropriation of the sugar canes, did not constitute theft, suggesting estafa or falsification as potential alternative charges.	Wayne Jain was accused of theft based on informations filed by the City Fiscal for allegedly stealing sugar canes. The prosecution argued that Jain, in conspiracy with a watchman, fraudulently substituted train receipts to misrepresent ownership and claim proceeds from sugar canes owned by Tomasa Bermejo.	Philosophy of Law
Arianza vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission (28th February 1978)	81 SCRA 698, 171 Phil. 616, No. L-43352	Manuel Arianza, an employee of Central Azucarera de la Carlota, Inc., filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act after developing liver cirrhosis, which he alleged was aggravated by his working conditions. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission dismissed his claim, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling that his illness was compensable as it was aggravated by his employment.	Arianza worked for Central Azucarera de la Carlota, Inc. from 1960, performing various physically demanding tasks, including packing and piling bagasse and working as a water tender in the fire-room. He developed liver cirrhosis, which he claimed was aggravated by his work conditions. His claim was initially dismissed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission but was later reversed by the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
Padua vs. Robles (29th August 1975)	66 SCRA 485, No. L-40486	This case arose from the tragic death of Normandy Padua, a 10-year-old boy struck by a taxi owned by Bay Taxi Cab and driven by Romeo Punzalan. Initially, civil liability was imposed solely on Punzalan, but when execution proved futile due to his insolvency, the boy’s parents pursued subsidiary liability against the taxi owner, Gregorio N. Robles, under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The lower court dismissed their case, prompting an appeal that reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the dismissal, recognizing Robles’ subsidiary liability.	On January 1, 1969, a taxi owned by Bay Taxi Cab, driven by Romeo Punzalan, hit and killed 10-year-old Normandy Padua in Olongapo City. The victim's parents (Paulino and Lucena Padua) filed a civil case against Punzalan and the Bay Taxi Cab (Civil Case No. 427-O), while Punzalan faced criminal charges for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Criminal Case No. 1158-O). The civil court ruled in favor of the Paduas, ordering Punzalan to pay damages but absolving Bay Taxi Cab. The criminal court later convicted Punzalan and sentenced him to imprisonment, stating that his civil liability had already been determined in Civil Case No. 427-O. However, when the Paduas attempted to execute the civil judgment, Punzalan was found to be insolvent. They then filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 1079-O) to enforce Robles’ subsidiary liability. The lower court dismissed the case, ruling that there was no cause of action. The Paduas appealed, and the Court of Appeals referred the case to the Supreme Court due to the legal question involved.	Philosophy of Law
Sta. Maria vs. Lopez (18th February 1970)	31 SCRA 637, No. L-30773	The case involves the transfer of Felixberto C. Sta. Maria from his position as Dean of the College of Education at the University of the Philippines (UP) to a Special Assistant role in the Office of the UP President. Sta. Maria challenged the transfer, arguing it was a removal without due process. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the transfer was effectively a removal and violated his right to security of tenure.	Sta. Maria was appointed Dean of the College of Education at UP for a five-year term. Due to student protests and demands for his resignation, UP President Salvador P. Lopez transferred him to a Special Assistant role. Sta. Maria argued this was a removal without cause or due process.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Lava (16th May 1969)	28 SCRA 72, No. L-4974,, No. L-4975,, No. L-4976, No. L-4977, No. L-4978	The case involves multiple criminal charges against members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), formerly known as Hukbalahap. The defendants were accused of rebellion complexed with multiple murders, arsons, and robberies. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that rebellion could not be complexed with other common crimes like murder and arson.	The accused, high-ranking members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), were charged with rebellion for engaging in armed attacks, raids, and assassinations aimed at overthrowing the government. The trial court found them guilty of rebellion with multiple murders, arsons, and robberies, sentencing several to death or life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court re-evaluated the conviction under established jurisprudence.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Hernandez (30th May 1964)	11 SCRA 223, No. L-6025, No. L-6026	This case involves multiple individuals, including Jose Lava and other high-ranking members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), who were charged with rebellion complexed with multiple murders, arson, and robberies. The Supreme Court reviewed the case on appeal and determined that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes. As a result, the Court ruled that the proper charge should be simple rebellion instead of the complex crime originally imposed by the lower court.	The accused were leaders or members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), formerly known as Hukbalahap (Huks). The government alleged that they conspired to overthrow the government through armed rebellion, organizing violent raids, ambushes, and assassinations. The trial court sentenced several defendants to death or life imprisonment, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations (29th May 1964)	11 SCRA 171, 120 Phil. 168, No. L-19555	The case involves a petition to declare Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 unconstitutional, which allows tenants to change their tenancy contract from share to leasehold. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, ruling that it is a valid exercise of police power aimed at promoting social justice and improving the economic condition of tenants.	Geronimo B. Ramos, a tenant of Mateo de Ramas, sought to change their tenancy agreement from share to leasehold under Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199. De Ramas refused, leading Ramos to file a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations, which ruled in favor of Ramos. De Ramas appealed, challenging the constitutionality of Section 14.	Philosophy of Law
Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al. (12th August 1959)	106 Phil. 2, No. L-13954	The case involves Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to participate in the flag ceremony at public schools, citing religious beliefs. The Supreme Court upheld the Department of Education's requirement for all students to participate in the flag ceremony, ruling that it does not violate religious freedom under the Constitution.	Petitioners, members of Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to let their children participate in the flag ceremony at public schools, citing religious beliefs. The children were expelled, leading to a legal challenge against the Department of Education's order mandating the flag ceremony.	Philosophy of Law
Guido vs. Rural Progress Admlnistration (31st October 1949)	84 Phil. 847, No. L-2089	The case involves a petition for prohibition filed by Justa G. Guido to prevent the Rural Progress Administration (RPA) from expropriating her commercial land in Maypajo, Caloocan, Rizal. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Guido, holding that the expropriation was not for public use and thus unconstitutional.	The RPA sought to expropriate two adjoining commercial lots owned by Justa G. Guido in Maypajo, Caloocan, Rizal, to resell them to tenants. Guido challenged the expropriation, arguing that the land was commercial and thus excluded from the purview of Commonwealth Act No. 539, which allows expropriation for agrarian reform.	Philosophy of Law
Sunripe Coconut Product Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations (30th April 1949)	83 Phil. 518, No. L-2009	This case revolves around whether parers and shellers working under the "pakiao" system at Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. are considered employees entitled to labor benefits like sick leave. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Industrial Relations' decision affirming their status as employees, citing the degree of control exercised by the company over these workers.	The case arose when the Sunshine Coconut Workers' Union filed a claim on behalf of parers and shellers seeking sick leave benefits. Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. contested the claim, arguing these workers were independent contractors. The dispute reached the Court of Industrial Relations, which ruled in favor of the workers. Sunripe appealed to the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
Vargas vs. Rilloraza (26th February 1948)	80 Phil. 297	The case challenges the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act (Commonwealth Act No. 682), which disqualifies Supreme Court Justices who held office under the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Executive Commission or the Philippine Republic from sitting in treason cases. The petitioner argues that the provision violates the Constitution, while the respondents defend its validity.	The case arose from a motion filed by Jorge B. Vargas, challenging the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act. This provision disqualified certain Supreme Court Justices from participating in treason cases related to the Japanese occupation, allowing the President to designate lower court judges to temporarily sit in the Supreme Court.	Philosophy of Law
Primicias vs. Fugoso (27th January 1948)	80 Phil. 71, No. L-1800	This case involves Cipriano P. Primicias, the General Campaign Manager of the Coalesced Minority Parties, who sought a permit to hold a public meeting at Plaza Miranda. The Mayor of Manila, Valeriano E. Fugoso, denied the request, citing public order concerns. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Primicias, holding that the Mayor did not have absolute discretion to refuse a permit for a peaceful assembly.	Cipriano P. Primicias requested a permit from Mayor Fugoso to hold a political rally at Plaza Miranda on November 16, 1947, to protest alleged election fraud. Initially approved by the Vice Mayor, the permit was revoked by the Mayor the next day, citing concerns over public order and the potential for unrest. Primicias filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor to grant the permit.	Philosophy of Law
Caraos vs. Daza (13th March 1947)	76 Phil. 681, No. L-442, G.R. No. 874	Jose Caraos, convicted of homicide in 1944, was released from prison during the Japanese occupation. After liberation, he was rearrested to serve the remainder of his sentence. Caraos claimed he was pardoned, but the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim and denied his petition for habeas corpus.	Jose Caraos was convicted of homicide in 1944 and sentenced to prison. During the Japanese occupation, he was released from jail, allegedly due to a pardon. After liberation, he was rearrested to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. Caraos filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming his release was due to a valid pardon.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Cruz (21st February 1946)	76 Phil. 169, G.R. No. L-52	A criminal case involving robbery in band where the appellant Teodoro De La Cruz y Tojos was found guilty of robbing a drug store with three other armed men. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction despite his denial of participation, based on positive identification by witnesses.	On June 25, 1945, four armed men robbed Dr. Gregorio B. Sison's drug store in Manila. The appellant was identified as one of the robbers who kept watch over the victims while they were forced to lie face down. The case primarily centered on the positive identification of the appellant by two witnesses.	Philosophy of Law