Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 60 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Yamashita vs. Styer (19th December 1945)	AK037613 75 Phil. 563 , No. L-129	After Japan's surrender in World War II, General Yamashita was captured and detained by the United States Army. He was charged with war crimes for failing to control his troops, who committed atrocities in the Philippines. Yamashita sought relief from the Philippine Supreme Court, claiming violations of his rights under international and domestic law.	The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Military Commission had been validly constituted, had jurisdiction over Yamashita and the offenses charged, and dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and prohibition.	Philosophy of Law
Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (12th November 1945)	AK341470 75 Phil. 285 , No. L-49	William F. Peralta, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila during the Japanese occupation, was charged with robbery under Act No. 65 and sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court created under Ordinance No. 7 of the puppet Republic of the Philippines. He began serving his sentence on August 21, 1944.	The Supreme Court held that Ordinance No. 7, which created the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, was null and void ab initio, and consequently, the proceedings that resulted in petitioner's conviction were also void.	Philosophy of Law
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (17th September 1945)	AK116370 75 Phil. 113 , No. L-5	During World War II, the Japanese forces occupied the Philippines and established the Philippine Executive Commission and later the Republic of the Philippines. After liberation by American forces, questions arose about the validity of judicial proceedings conducted during the occupation period.	The Supreme Court ruled that judicial acts and proceedings of courts during the Japanese occupation remained valid after liberation, but that courts needed proper enabling laws to continue proceedings from the Japanese occupation period.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Kasilag vs. Rodriguez et al. (7th December 1939)	AK490298 69 Phil . 217 , No. 46623	The case revolves around a homestead property dispute that began in 1932. Emiliana Ambrosio, who had been granted a homestead patent in 1931, entered into a contract with Marcial Kasilag where she received P1,000 in exchange for what was documented as a mortgage on the property's improvements (consisting of fruit trees and bamboo). The contract included provisions for a future sale if Ambrosio failed to repay within 4.5 years. After one year, when Ambrosio couldn't pay the interest or taxes, they made a verbal agreement allowing Kasilag to possess the land, collect its fruits, and make improvements in lieu of interest payments. Kasilag took possession, paid taxes, and invested P5,000 in improvements. After Ambrosio's death, her heirs (Rafaela Rodriguez and others) sued to recover the property, arguing that the original contract was actually a disguised absolute sale attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on homestead alienation. The case worked its way through the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court, where the fundamental question was whether the agreement was a legitimate mortgage of improvements or an illegal attempt to transfer a homestead property during the restricted period.	The contract constituted a valid mortgage of improvements on the homestead land, not an absolute sale. The petitioner was deemed to be in good faith regarding possession and improvements.	Philosophy of Law
Philippine National Bank vs. National City Bank of New York (31st October 1936)	AK161292 63 Phil. 711 , G. R. No. 43596	In April 1933, Motor Service Company (MSC) accepted two checks as payment for automobile tires from unknown individuals. These checks were purportedly issued by the Pangasinan Transportation Co. and signed by J.L. Klar as Manager and Treasurer, payable to International Auto Repair Shop. MSC deposited these checks with the National City Bank of New York, which then cleared them through the Philippine National Bank (PNB). After honoring the checks, PNB discovered that J.L. Klar's signatures were forged when informed by Pangasinan Transportation Co. PNB immediately demanded reimbursement from both MSC and National City Bank, but both refused. PNB filed suit, and the case was eventually dismissed against National City Bank before trial, proceeding solely against MSC for recovery of the funds paid on the forged checks.	Payment of a check does not constitute acceptance under Section 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. A drawee bank can recover payments made on forged checks from negligent holders who failed to exercise due diligence in accepting the checks.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Pomar (3rd November 1924)	AK753803 46 Phil. 440 , No. 22008	In 1923, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 3071, which mandated employers to provide paid maternity leave to pregnant women workers. Under Section 13 of this law, women employees were entitled to receive wages for thirty days before and thirty days after childbirth. The case arose when Julio Pomar, managing La Flor de la Isabela tobacco factory, refused to pay such maternity benefits to Macaria Fajardo, a cigar-maker who had given birth. The prosecution filed charges against Pomar for violating the Act, leading to his conviction in the lower court. Pomar challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing it violated fundamental rights to freedom of contract and property, ultimately bringing the case before the Supreme Court for review.	The provisions of Section 13 of Act No. 3071 are unconstitutional and void as they violate the constitutional right to liberty of contract under the first paragraph of section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916.	Philosophy of Law
United States vs. Constantino Tan Quingco Chua (29th January 1919)	AK487241 39 Phil. 552 , No. 13708	The case originated from a loan of P100 made by Chua to Pedro Andres in 1911. Over five years, the debt grew to approximately P700 due to excessive interest. The transaction was later disguised as a pacto de retro sale to evade the Usury Law.	The court held that the transaction was a usurious loan disguised as a pacto de retro sale, and Chua was guilty of violating the Usury Law.	Philosophy of Law
Manzanares vs. Moreta (22nd October 1918)	AK506216 38 Phil. 821 , No. 12306	In this landmark case from 1918, an automobile accident occurred on the morning of March 5, 1916, at the intersection of Solana and Real Streets in Manila. Rafael Moreta was driving his automobile from the southern part of Solana Street when he encountered other vehicles at Real Street. After this encounter, instead of proceeding cautiously, he continued at high speed without sounding his horn. As he entered Solana Street, his vehicle struck and fatally injured Salvador Bona, a child between 8 and 9 years old, who was crossing from the right sidewalk to the left. The impact was so severe that even after hitting the child, the automobile continued moving for about two meters. The victim's mother, Simona Manzanares, a poor washerwoman, filed a civil case seeking P5,000 in damages. The Court of First Instance awarded her P1,000 as indemnity, which Moreta appealed after his motion for a new trial was denied. The case reached the Supreme Court through a bill of exceptions, where it became a pivotal decision establishing important principles about damage compensation in cases involving wrongful death, particularly concerning minor children.	The Supreme Court held that an action for damages can be maintained in Philippine jurisdiction for the death of a person by wrongful act, and that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the law presumes pecuniary loss to the parent without need for specific proof of actual earnings or support.	Philosophy of Law
United States vs. Guendia (20th December 1917)	AK647225 37 Phil. 337 , No. 12462	Simeon Guendia was charged with frustrated murder for attacking his querida. The lower court found him guilty, though it acknowledged his apparent insanity. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding his mental state at the time of the offense and during the trial.	The Supreme Court ruled that Guendia was insane at the time of the commission of the crime and thus exempt from criminal liability under subsection 1 of Article 8 of the Penal Code.	Philosophy of Law
The United States vs. Santos (10th September 1917)	AK917783 36 Phil. 853 , No. 12779	Dionisio Santos, a policeman in Pateros, Rizal, was tasked with preventing pilfering in a certain area. While patrolling, he saw two individuals near an uninhabited house and arrested them without a warrant, detaining them for six to seven hours before releasing them. The trial court convicted Santos of coercion, but the Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if his actions were justified.	A peace officer who arrests a person without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion and in good faith is not liable, even if the arrested person is later found innocent.	Philosophy of Law