There are 60 results on the current subject filter
| Title | Reference #s | Summary | Background | Subject Matter |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yamashita vs. Styer (19th December 1945) |
75 Phil. 563, No. L-129 |
This case involves General Tomoyuki Yamashita, who was tried by an American Military Commission for war crimes committed during World War II in the Philippines. Yamashita filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition, challenging the jurisdiction of the military tribunal and the legality of his detention and trial. The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Military Commission. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (12th November 1945) |
75 Phil. 285, No. L-49 |
A habeas corpus case challenging the validity of a life imprisonment sentence imposed by a Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created during the Japanese occupation, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court invalidating the sentence based on the court's violation of fundamental rights and due process. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (17th September 1945) |
75 Phil. 113, No. L-5 |
A landmark case that determined the validity of judicial acts and proceedings conducted during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, specifically addressing whether courts established under the Japanese regime could continue their proceedings after liberation. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction |
|
Kasilag vs. Rodriguez et al. (7th December 1939) |
69 Phil . 217, No. 46623 |
A dispute over the validity of a contract involving a homestead property, where the Supreme Court had to determine whether the agreement was a mortgage of improvements or an absolute sale disguised as a mortgage to circumvent legal restrictions on homestead alienation. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
Philippine National Bank vs. National City Bank of New York (31st October 1936) |
63 Phil. 711, G. R. No. 43596 |
A case involving forged checks where Philippine National Bank (PNB) sought to recover payments made on forged checks from Motor Service Company (MSC). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PNB, establishing important principles regarding bank liability for forged checks and the duty of care in check transactions. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
People vs. Pomar (3rd November 1924) |
46 Phil. 440, No. 22008 |
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 of Act No. 3071, which required employers to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant women employees, was unconstitutional as it violated the constitutional right to freedom of contract protected by the due process clause. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
United States vs. Constantino Tan Quingco Chua (29th January 1919) |
39 Phil. 552, No. 13708 |
The case involves Francisco Constantino Tan Quingco Chua, who was charged with usury for charging excessive interest on a loan. The court found that the transaction, disguised as a pacto de retro sale, was actually a usurious loan, and Chua was convicted under the Usury Law. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
Manzanares vs. Moreta (22nd October 1918) |
38 Phil. 821, No. 12306 |
A case involving a claim for damages resulting from the death of an 8-9 year old child who was run over by an automobile driven by the defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's award of P1,000 as indemnity to the mother, establishing important principles about damages in cases involving death by wrongful act. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
United States vs. Guendia (20th December 1917) |
37 Phil. 337, No. 12462 |
The case involves Simeon Guendia, who was convicted of frustrated murder by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, acquitting Guendia on the grounds of insanity at the time of the crime. The court ordered his confinement in a mental health institution instead of imposing criminal liability. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
|
The United States vs. Santos (10th September 1917) |
36 Phil. 853, No. 12779 |
Dionisio Santos, a policeman, arrested two individuals without a warrant based on suspicious behavior late at night. The trial court convicted him of coercion, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, acquitting Santos, holding that his actions were in good faith and within the scope of his duties as a peace officer. | 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. |
Philosophy of Law |
Yamashita vs. Styer
19th December 1945
75 Phil. 563,
No. L-129
Summary
This case involves General Tomoyuki Yamashita, who was tried by an American Military Commission for war crimes committed during World War II in the Philippines. Yamashita filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition, challenging the jurisdiction of the military tribunal and the legality of his detention and trial. The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Military Commission.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
Peralta vs. Director of Prisons
12th November 1945
75 Phil. 285,
No. L-49
Summary
A habeas corpus case challenging the validity of a life imprisonment sentence imposed by a Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created during the Japanese occupation, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court invalidating the sentence based on the court's violation of fundamental rights and due process.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon
17th September 1945
75 Phil. 113,
No. L-5
Summary
A landmark case that determined the validity of judicial acts and proceedings conducted during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, specifically addressing whether courts established under the Japanese regime could continue their proceedings after liberation.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
Statutory Construction
Kasilag vs. Rodriguez et al.
7th December 1939
69 Phil . 217,
No. 46623
Summary
A dispute over the validity of a contract involving a homestead property, where the Supreme Court had to determine whether the agreement was a mortgage of improvements or an absolute sale disguised as a mortgage to circumvent legal restrictions on homestead alienation.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
Philippine National Bank vs. National City Bank of New York
31st October 1936
63 Phil. 711,
G. R. No. 43596
Summary
A case involving forged checks where Philippine National Bank (PNB) sought to recover payments made on forged checks from Motor Service Company (MSC). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PNB, establishing important principles regarding bank liability for forged checks and the duty of care in check transactions.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
People vs. Pomar
3rd November 1924
46 Phil. 440,
No. 22008
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 of Act No. 3071, which required employers to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant women employees, was unconstitutional as it violated the constitutional right to freedom of contract protected by the due process clause.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
United States vs. Constantino Tan Quingco Chua
29th January 1919
39 Phil. 552,
No. 13708
Summary
The case involves Francisco Constantino Tan Quingco Chua, who was charged with usury for charging excessive interest on a loan. The court found that the transaction, disguised as a pacto de retro sale, was actually a usurious loan, and Chua was convicted under the Usury Law.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
Manzanares vs. Moreta
22nd October 1918
38 Phil. 821,
No. 12306
Summary
A case involving a claim for damages resulting from the death of an 8-9 year old child who was run over by an automobile driven by the defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's award of P1,000 as indemnity to the mother, establishing important principles about damages in cases involving death by wrongful act.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
United States vs. Guendia
20th December 1917
37 Phil. 337,
No. 12462
Summary
The case involves Simeon Guendia, who was convicted of frustrated murder by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, acquitting Guendia on the grounds of insanity at the time of the crime. The court ordered his confinement in a mental health institution instead of imposing criminal liability.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law
The United States vs. Santos
10th September 1917
36 Phil. 853,
No. 12779
Summary
Dionisio Santos, a policeman, arrested two individuals without a warrant based on suspicious behavior late at night. The trial court convicted him of coercion, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, acquitting Santos, holding that his actions were in good faith and within the scope of his duties as a peace officer.
Background
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.
Philosophy of Law