Talaan ng mga Kaso | Ang Kaalaman

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 668 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Trillanes IV vs. Judge Pimentel, Sr., et al. (7th February 2008)	AK688993 578 Phil. 1002 , G.R. No. 179817	The case arose after the "Oakwood Incident" on July 27, 2003, where over 300 armed soldiers, led by junior AFP officers including petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV, took over the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City, demanding the resignation of the President and other key officials. Following their surrender, Trillanes was charged with coup d'etat and remained in detention. While detained, he ran for and won a seat in the Senate in the May 2007 elections.	A detention prisoner, even if an elected public official like a Senator, cannot be allowed to leave detention to attend legislative sessions or perform other official functions outside their place of confinement, as the fact of lawful detention inherently curtails rights and privileges, including the full exercise of civil and political rights associated with public office, especially when bail has been denied due to strong evidence of guilt for a non-bailable offense.	Constitutional Law I
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio (27th December 2007)	AK570269 541 SCRA 479 , 565 Phil. 766 , G.R. No. 169454	Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante owned a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 352. They had children, including Marcelino and Fortunato Doronio. Simeon and Cornelia executed a private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of Marcelino and his wife Veronica Pico. The description in the deed of donation differed slightly from OCT No. 352 regarding adjacent property owners. Petitioners, heirs of Marcelino, registered the deed through a petition case without naming respondents, heirs of Fortunato, leading to a new TCT in their predecessor's name, covering the entire property. Respondents contested this, claiming only half was intended for donation and the donation was invalid.	The private deed of donation propter nuptias of real property executed in 1919 under the Old Civil Code is void for not being in a public instrument; therefore, it conveyed no title.	Property and Land Law
Garcia vs. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection (17th December 2007)	AK000744 540 SCRA 456 , 565 Phil. 193 , G.R. No. 170735	Impact Corporation, a manufacturer of aluminum tube containers, experienced financial difficulties in 1978, leading to labor unrest and eventual cessation of operations. Despite collecting SSS contributions from its employees, the company failed to remit them. The SSS pursued legal actions to recover the unremitted contributions.	The Supreme Court upheld that as the only surviving director of the now-dissolved Impact Corporation, Immaculada L. Garcia was liable for unpaid Social Security System (SSS) contributions and penalties imposed under the Social Security Law.	Statutory Construction
Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation (14th December 2007)	AK258876 540 SCRA 304 , 565 Phil. 59 , G.R. No. 123346 , G.R. No. 134385	The dispute centers on ownership claims over portions of the vast Maysilo Estate, all purportedly originating from OCT No. 994. Conflicting claims arose between Manotok Realty and Manotok Estate Corporation versus CLT Realty Development Corporation in one case, and Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. versus the Heirs of Jose B. Dimson in the other. These cases reached the Supreme Court after conflicting decisions in the lower courts and the Court of Appeals concerning the validity of the parties' titles. Prior Supreme Court decisions in MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals had previously addressed claims emanating from OCT No. 994, but inconsistencies and new factual evidence necessitated a re-examination.	The Supreme Court remanded the consolidated cases to a Special Division of the Court of Appeals to conduct further proceedings and factually determine which of the contending parties' titles, if any, are validly derived from the genuine Original Certificate of Title No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, and to resolve other factual issues crucial to determining rightful land ownership. Titles purportedly derived from a non-existent OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 are declared void.	Property and Land Law
Salvador vs. Mapa (28th November 2007)	AK471249 539 SCRA 34 , G.R. No. 135080	During the Marcos administration, government financial institutions granted loans at the behest of high officials to cronies, often under-collateralized and to undercapitalized entities, leading to significant losses for the government; post-1986 EDSA Revolution, efforts to recover such ill-gotten wealth prompted the creation of investigative bodies, including the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans under Administrative Order No. 13 in 1992 to inventory and recommend recovery actions for these loans.	The prescriptive period for violations of Republic Act No. 3019 in behest loan cases commences from the date of discovery by the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans in 1992, not from the commission of the acts, and Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 are not ex post facto laws as they are not penal in nature.	Civil Procedure II Rule 45 vs. Rule 65
Silverio vs. Republic (19th October 2007)	AK402555 537 SCRA 373 , G.R. No. 174689	Petitioner Rommel Silverio, born anatomically male, identified as a female from childhood and felt "trapped in a man's body." After consulting with doctors, he underwent hormone therapy, breast augmentation, and ultimately, a sex reassignment surgery in Thailand. Living as a female and engaged to be married to a man, he sought to have his public records, specifically his birth certificate, reflect his new identity and physical state by changing his first name and sex entry.	Philippine law does not permit a person who has undergone sex reassignment surgery to change their name and sex as recorded in their birth certificate to align with their new physical characteristics, as there is no statute that recognizes or governs the effects of such a procedure.	Persons and Family Law Family Code, Articles 1 and 2
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. of the Phils. vs. Health Sec. Duque III (9th October 2007)	AK573831 561 Phil. 386 , G.R. No. 173034	Executive Order No. 51, "The Milk Code," was issued in 1986 to give effect to Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), aiming to protect and promote breastfeeding. Over the years, the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted various resolutions recommending stricter measures for marketing breastmilk substitutes, including absolute bans on advertising and promotion for certain age groups. The Department of Health (DOH), citing these international instruments and its mandate under the Milk Code and the Administrative Code, issued A.O. No. 2006-0012 (RIRR) to update the implementing rules of the Milk Code, leading to this legal challenge by manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes.	The Department of Health (DOH) exceeded its rule-making authority when it issued RIRR provisions (Sections 4(f), 11, and 46) that absolutely prohibited advertising, promotions, and sponsorships of breastmilk substitutes for infants and young children up to 24 months and imposed administrative fines not authorized by the Milk Code (E.O. No. 51). While the DOH has the power to issue rules to implement the Milk Code, these rules cannot expand, modify, or contradict the parent statute; international instruments like World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolutions, unless transformed into domestic law through legislation or qualifying as customary international law, cannot be implemented by executive agencies as if they were binding domestic law.	Constitutional Law I
Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo vs. Rañon (5th September 2007)	AK869857 532 SCRA 391 , 559 Phil. 169 , G.R. No. 171068	Agrifina Rañon filed a complaint against spouses Montemayor to quiet title over a residential lot, claiming ownership based on long and continuous possession since 1962. The Heirs of Arzadon-Crisologo intervened, asserting their rights as successors-in-interest of the original owners and claiming that Rañon's possession was not in good faith and did not ripen into ownership. The spouses Montemayor were later dropped as parties as they had repurchased the property from the Arzadons. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially ruled in favor of the Arzadon heirs, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, favoring the Rañons through acquisitive prescription. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.	The respondents, Heirs of Agrifina Rañon, validly acquired ownership of the subject property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription because they demonstrated continuous, peaceful, public, notorious, uninterrupted, and adverse possession in the concept of an owner for over thirty years.	Property and Land Law
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Primetown Property Group, Inc. (28th August 2007)	AK150634 531 SCRA 436 , G.R. No. 162155	The case originated from a claim for a tax refund by Primetown Property Group, Inc. (Primetown) for taxes paid in 1997. Due to the Asian Financial Crisis, the real estate industry slowed down, causing Primetown to suffer significant losses for that year. Despite these losses, the company had paid quarterly corporate income taxes and remitted creditable withholding taxes. Believing it was not liable for income tax due to its net loss, Primetown filed an administrative claim for a refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), which was not acted upon, prompting the company to seek judicial relief.	A "year" for the purpose of computing legal periods is understood to be twelve calendar months, as provided in Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which has impliedly repealed the definition of a "year" as 365 days under Article 13 of the Civil Code.	Persons and Family Law Statutory Construction Article 13, Civil Code
Cemco Holdings, Inc. vs. National Life Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc. (7th August 2007)	AK555743 529 SCRA 355 , 556 Phil. 198 , G.R. NO. 171815	Cemco Holdings acquired shares in Union Cement Holdings Corporation (UCHC), a non-listed company holding 60.51% of Union Cement Corporation (UCC), a publicly listed firm. This indirect acquisition increased Cemco’s beneficial ownership in UCC from 17.03% to 53%. National Life Insurance, a minority UCC shareholder, demanded Cemco comply with the Mandatory Tender Offer Rule. After Cemco refused, National Life filed a complaint with the SEC.	The Supreme Court affirmed that the Mandatory Tender Offer Rule under the Securities Regulation Code applies to indirect acquisitions of shares in a publicly listed company, protecting minority shareholders. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had jurisdiction to order Cemco Holdings to conduct a tender offer after it acquired indirect control of Union Cement Corporation (UCC) through purchasing shares in its holding company.	Statutory Construction
National Electrification Administration vs. Morales (24th July 2007)	AK115653 528 SCRA 79 , 555 Phil. 74 , G.R. No. 154200	Danilo Morales and other employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) filed a class suit against NEA for the payment of various allowances and longevity pay purportedly authorized under Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Classification Act of 1989). The RTC granted their petition, ordering NEA to settle their claims.	A judgment directing a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) to "settle the claims" of its employees is a special judgment for the performance of an act other than the payment of a specific sum of money, and its execution cannot be enforced through garnishment; furthermore, even if a GOCC's funds can generally be garnished, a claim for payment of a judgment award against it must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA) before execution can proceed.	Constitutional Law I
Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD (29th June 2007)	AK712617 526 SCRA 130 , 553 Phil. 120 , G.R. No. 166494	Petitioners, drugstore owners, questioned the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257, which provides senior citizens with a 20% discount on medicines, arguing that the provided tax deduction mechanism does not fully reimburse them and results in financial losses, amounting to confiscation of property without just compensation. They contended that it violates their rights to due process and equal protection and the constitutional mandate to make essential goods available at affordable cost.	Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257, the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is constitutional as it is a valid exercise of police power and does not violate the constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, or constitute unjust taking of private property.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Maquilan vs. Maquilan (8th June 2007)	AK265106 551 Phil. 601 , 524 SCRA 166 , G.R. No. 155409	The case stems from a marital dispute between Virgilio and Dita Maquilan. After Virgilio discovered Dita having an illicit affair, he filed a criminal case for adultery, resulting in the conviction of Dita and her paramour. Subsequently, Dita filed a civil case for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on psychological incapacity. During the pre-trial of this civil case, the spouses executed a Compromise Agreement to divide their assets, which the trial court approved. Virgilio later attempted to repudiate this agreement, leading to the current legal battle.	A Compromise Agreement effecting a partial voluntary separation of property between spouses is valid and binding even if one spouse has been convicted of adultery, as the penalty for adultery (prision correccional) does not carry the accessory penalty of civil interdiction or automatic forfeiture of property rights absent a specific decree of legal separation or nullity requiring such forfeiture; furthermore, the participation of the Solicitor General is not a prerequisite for the validity of a property settlement that does not compromise the validity of the marriage bond.	Persons and Family Law Nullity of marriage; Effects
Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC (4th May 2007)	AK522247 551 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 177271 , G.R. NO. 177314	The case arose from the upcoming May 14, 2007 party-list elections. Various groups filed manifestations of intent to participate, and some were accredited by the COMELEC. Public perception grew that some individuals behind these accredited party-list groups did not genuinely represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Petitioners, concerned about the qualifications and sectoral representation of these nominees, sought the disclosure of their names from the COMELEC, which the latter refused, leading to these petitions.	The Commission on Elections has a constitutional duty to disclose to the public the names of party-list nominees, as this is a matter of public concern falling under the people's right to information; Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941, which states that "The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list," only prohibits the inclusion of such names on the certified list posted in polling places on election day and does not constitute an absolute bar to their disclosure through other means before the election.	Constitutional Law I
Rev. Fr. Cayat vs. COMELEC (1st Div.) (24th April 2007)	AK957651 550 Phil. 209 , G.R. No. 163776 , G.R. No. 165736	Rev. Fr. Nardo B. Cayat and Thomas R. Palileng, Sr. were candidates for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet in the May 10, 2004 local elections. Cayat had been previously convicted by final judgment for Forcible Acts of Lasciviousness, a crime involving moral turpitude, and was under probation when he filed his certificate of candidacy. This conviction became the basis for Palileng's petition to disqualify Cayat.	A candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted; consequently, the candidate who is the sole remaining qualified candidate does not merely take second place but is the only placer and is entitled to be proclaimed.	Constitutional Law I
Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs. COMELEC (13th April 2007)	AK084300 549 Phil. 76 , G.R. No. 172103	The dispute arose from the allocation of party-list seats in the House of Representatives following the May 2004 National and Local Elections. After petitioner CIBAC was proclaimed as having qualified for one seat by receiving the required two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for party-list representatives, a controversy emerged regarding its entitlement to an additional seat, hinging on the correct formula for computation to be used by the COMELEC.	The correct and prevailing formula for computing additional seats for qualified party-list groups is the one established in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, which is: (Number of votes of concerned party / Number of votes of first party) x Number of additional seats allocated to the first party. A party-list group must obtain an exact whole number in this computation to be entitled to an additional seat; fractions are not rounded up.	Constitutional Law I
Republic vs. Lacap (2nd March 2007)	AK609364 G.R. No. 158253 , 517 SCRA 255	The District Engineer of Pampanga initiated a public bidding for the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare. Carlito Lacap, doing business as Carwin Construction and Construction Supply, was one of three pre-qualified contractors. After submitting the lowest bid, Lacap was awarded the contract by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). A formal Contract Agreement was executed, and Lacap proceeded with and completed the project. The dispute arose when the government, through the DPWH, refused to release the payment for the completed project upon the disapproval of the District Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA).	A contractor with an expired license who fully completes a government project is entitled to payment, as the Contractor's License Law (R.A. No. 4566) does not declare contracts entered into under such circumstances as void. The government cannot refuse payment and retain the benefits of the completed work, as this would constitute unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code.	Persons and Family Law Article 22 of the Civil Code
Adasa vs. Abalos (19th February 2007)	AK799445 516 SCRA 261 , 545 Phil. 168 , G.R. No. 168617	The case originated from two complaints filed by Cecille S. Abalos against Bernadette L. Adasa for estafa, alleging that Adasa encashed two checks without her consent. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City found probable cause and filed criminal cases against Adasa. Adasa sought reinvestigation, and the DOJ later reversed the prosecutor's resolution, leading to the withdrawal of the charges. The trial court dismissed the case based on the DOJ's resolution, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Adasa to file a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.	The Supreme Court denied Adasa's petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the DOJ should not have entertained Adasa's petition for review after her arraignment, as it violated DOJ Circular No. 70. The trial court's dismissal of the case was also void as it was based on the DOJ's void resolutions.	Statutory Construction
Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (27th October 2006)	AK270160 505 SCRA 654 , 536 Phil 511 , G.R. No. 159268	Josefina Hipolito-Herrero was hired by Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative in 1991. After closing a branch office in 1994, she resigned and later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering Balagtas to pay backwages, separation pay, and 13th-month pay. Balagtas appealed to the NLRC but refused to post the required bond, citing Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code. The NLRC and Court of Appeals rejected this argument.	Cooperatives are not exempt from posting an appeal bond under Article 223 of the Labor Code when appealing to the NLRC. The exemption in Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code applies only to appeals from decisions of inferior courts (e.g., municipal or regional trial courts), not quasi-judicial agencies.	Statutory Construction
Lambino vs. Commission on Elections (25th October 2006)	AK596385 505 SCRA 160 , 536 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 174153 , G.R. No. 174299	The petitioners, led by Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado, sought to amend the 1987 Constitution via a people’s initiative by collecting signatures from registered voters. They filed a petition with the COMELEC requesting a plebiscite to ratify their proposed amendments. COMELEC dismissed their petition, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, which declared R.A. 6735 inadequate to allow an initiative for constitutional amendments. The petitioners then sought recourse with the Supreme Court.	The Supreme Court ruled that the initiative petition filed by the Lambino Group was fatally defective because it failed to comply with constitutional requirements. It also reaffirmed the Santiago v. COMELEC ruling that R.A. 6735 is inadequate to implement the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II
Ong vs. Ong (23rd October 2006)	AK031915 535 Phil. 805 , 505 SCRA 76 , G.R. No. 153206	William and Lucita Ong were married for over twenty years and had three children. In 1996, Lucita sought legal separation, claiming her life with William was characterized by frequent quarrels, physical assaults, and verbal abuse. The situation escalated during an incident in December 1995 involving physical violence and a gun, which forced Lucita to leave the conjugal home and seek medical treatment.	The Supreme Court affirmed that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court unless specific exceptions apply. Furthermore, the Court established that a witness's relationship to a party does not automatically render their testimony biased or incredible, and leaving the conjugal dwelling due to abusive conduct does not constitute "abandonment" that would bar a decree of legal separation.	Persons and Family Law Legal separation
Golangco vs. Fung (16th October 2006)	AK531157 504 SCRA 321 , G.R. No. 147640 , G.R. No. 147762	The case arises from complaints about excessive placement fees charged by recruitment agencies for overseas employment, leading to investigations by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) under the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to enforce labor laws against illegal recruitment practices, including non-transferability of recruitment licenses.	A public officer's warrantless arrest during a legitimate entrapment operation, based on reasonable belief of violation of labor laws prohibiting unauthorized recruitment activities, does not constitute administrative offenses like oppression or grave misconduct when performed in good faith, though courts lack jurisdiction to review Ombudsman findings of probable cause in criminal cases.	Civil Procedure II Rule 43
Muller vs. Muller (29th August 2006)	AK139276 531 Phil. 460 , 500 SCRA 65 , G.R. No. 149615	The case stems from the breakdown of the marriage between a Filipino woman and a German man who had settled in the Philippines. The dispute centers on the financial settlement regarding a residential property in Antipolo, Rizal. The property was purchased and developed using the German husband's inherited funds but was registered solely in the wife's name to comply with Philippine laws prohibiting foreigners from owning land. Upon separation, the husband sought to recover his financial investment.	An alien who knowingly provides funds for the purchase of private land in the Philippines, circumventing the Constitutional prohibition against alien land ownership, is barred from seeking reimbursement for said funds or the cost of improvements based on equity, as he does not come to court with clean hands.	Persons and Family Law Property relations; Absolute community
Aquino vs. Quezon City (3rd August 2006)	AK382783 497 SCRA 497 , 529 Phil. 486 , G.R. No. 137534 , G.R. No. 138624	G.R. No. 137534 (Aquino Case): The Aquino spouses' 612-square meter lot in East Avenue Subdivision, Diliman, Quezon City, was sold in 1984 for non-payment of property taxes from 1975 to 1982. They withheld payment as a protest against the Marcos regime. G.R. No. 138624 (Torrado Case): A 407-square meter property at No. 20 North Road, Cubao, Quezon City, owned by Solomon Torrado, was sold in 1983 due to unpaid property taxes from 1976 to 1982. Notices were sent to an insufficient address, "Butuan City," causing them to be undelivered.	The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the auction sales, ruling that the notice requirements under P.D. No. 464 were sufficiently complied with. The Court emphasized that personal service of notice via registered mail satisfies the legal requirements even if the notice was not personally received. Constructive notice through compliance with statutory procedures was deemed adequate.	Statutory Construction
Sevilla vs. Cardenas (31st July 2006)	AK546972 497 SCRA 428 , 529 Phil. 419 , G.R. No. 167684	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.	The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision that the marriage between Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas was valid, as the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar did not conclusively prove the absence of a marriage license.	Philosophy of Law
Rufino vs. Endriga (21st July 2006)	AK344369 528 Phil. 473 , G.R. No. 139554	Presidential Decree No. 15 created the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) as a non-municipal public corporation governed by a Board of Trustees. PD 15, as amended, provided that vacancies in the Board were to be filled by election by a majority of the remaining trustees. Only if the Board became entirely vacant could the President of the Philippines fill such vacancies. This case arose from a dispute between a group of trustees appointed by then-President Joseph E. Estrada (Rufino group) and the incumbent trustees (Endriga group) who claimed their terms had not yet expired and that vacancies should be filled according to PD 15.	Section 6(b) and (c) of Presidential Decree No. 15, as amended, are unconstitutional insofar as they authorize the remaining trustees of the Cultural Center of the Philippines Board to fill vacancies in the Board by election, as this mechanism infringes upon the President's constitutional power of appointment and power of control.	Constitutional Law I
Preysler, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals (11th July 2006)	AK116882 494 SCRA 547 , 527 Phil. 129 , G.R. No. 158141	Petitioner owned landlocked parcels adjacent to Respondent's Tali Beach Subdivision, needing access through the subdivision roads. Respondent initially allowed access but later barricaded the property. Petitioner sought a right of way and preliminary injunction. The trial court initially granted a preliminary injunction to remove barricades and allow passage. This was later amended to include passage for contractors, equipment, and power line installation.	The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the original writ of preliminary injunction (maintaining status quo). However, the Supreme Court recognized the petitioner's need for temporary easement for construction purposes under Article 656 of the Civil Code and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the proper indemnity for this temporary right of way. The installation of power lines was deemed a permanent easement not covered by the temporary easement provisions.	Property and Land Law
Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Elma (30th June 2006)	AK754720 526 Phil. 550 , G.R. No. 138965	The case arose from the appointment of Magdangal B. Elma to two significant government positions: first as Chairman of the PCGG and subsequently, during his tenure there, as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. This dual appointment raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and violations of constitutional provisions designed to prevent officials from holding multiple public offices, particularly given the distinct and potentially overlapping or conflicting responsibilities of the two roles.	The concurrent appointments of an individual as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC) are unconstitutional because the two offices are incompatible, violating the prohibition against holding multiple offices under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.	Constitutional Law I
Estrada vs. Escritor (22nd June 2006)	AK431336 492 SCRA 1 , 525 Phil. 110 , A.M. No. P-02-1651	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.	The State failed to demonstrate a compelling interest that would justify infringing upon the respondent's fundamental right to the free exercise of her religion, and failed to show that the means adopted was the least restrictive; therefore, the respondent's conjugal arrangement, sanctioned by her religious beliefs and practices as a Jehovah's Witness, cannot be penalized as disgraceful and immoral conduct, and she is entitled to an exemption based on her right to religious freedom.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Freedom of Religion
Mirasol, et al. vs. Department of Public Works and Highways and Toll Regulatory Board (8th June 2006)	AK762874 523 Phil. 713 , G.R. NO. 158793	The case arose from the implementation of various administrative orders and regulations issued over several decades by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and its predecessors, aiming to regulate traffic on limited access highways, commonly known as tollways or expressways. Specifically, these issuances involved restrictions and prohibitions on the use of motorcycles on these facilities, prompting challenges from motorcycle riders regarding the issuing body's authority and the constitutionality of the restrictions.	The authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to limited access facilities (tollways) under Republic Act No. 2000, originally vested in the Department of Public Works and Communications, was transferred to the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) by Executive Order 546 in 1979; consequently, subsequent issuances by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) regulating such access are void for lack of authority, while regulations issued by the predecessor department prior to the transfer remain valid if consistent with the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (3rd May 2006)	AK973659 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	On February 24, 2006, amidst alleged conspiracies by political opposition, leftist insurgents (NDF-CPP-NPA), and military adventurists to overthrow the government, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued PP 1017, declaring a state of national emergency. This declaration cited threats to the democratic Philippine State, including plots to unseat or assassinate the President, magnified by certain media segments, and actions adversely affecting the economy and national security. On the same day, G.O. No. 5 was issued to implement PP 1017, directing the AFP and PNP to suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence. These issuances followed a series of events, including the escape of Magdalo Group members, discovery of "Oplan Hackle I" (a plot for bombings and assassinations), recapture of Lt. San Juan with subversive documents, alleged defection plans within the PNP-SAF, and confessions by military officers about plans to join anti-Arroyo protests.	The President has the constitutional power to declare a state of national emergency and call out the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. However, such a declaration does not authorize the President to (1) issue decrees, (2) direct the AFP to enforce laws unrelated to suppressing lawless violence, (3) impose prior restraint on the press, or (4) take over privately-owned public utilities or businesses affected with public interest without legislative authority under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution. General Order No. 5 is constitutional in providing a standard for the AFP and PNP to implement PP 1017, but its reference to undefined "acts of terrorism" is unconstitutional.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (20th April 2006)	AK395231 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 case arose from various Senate inquiries into matters of public concern, including the North Luzon Railways (NorthRail) Project, the "Gloriagate Scandal" involving alleged electoral fraud and wiretapping, and the fertilizer fund scam. Several executive officials invited to these hearings declined to attend, citing E.O. 464, which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued on September 28, 2005. This prompted multiple petitioners, including the Senate, legislators, and public interest groups, to challenge the constitutionality of E.O. 464 before the Supreme Court.	Executive Order No. 464 is unconstitutional in part: Sections 2(b) and 3 are void because they allow executive officials to evade congressional inquiries without a specific and properly invoked claim of executive privilege by the President or the Executive Secretary (by order of the President), thereby unduly infringing upon the legislative power of inquiry. Section 1 is valid when construed to apply only to the Question Hour (Art. VI, Sec. 22, Constitution), and Section 2(a) is valid as an internal guideline for the executive department concerning information that may be considered privileged.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Star Paper Corporation vs.Simbol (12th April 2006)	AK657436 521 Phil. 364 , G.R. No. 164774	Petitioner Star Paper Corporation implemented a policy in 1995 stating that if two employees marry each other, one must resign. This policy also barred the hiring of new applicants who had relatives up to the third degree of relationship already employed by the company. The case arose when three regular employees, Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia, and Lorna E. Estrella, were affected by this policy or related circumstances leading to their separation from the company.	A company policy prohibiting spouses from working in the same company (no-spouse policy) is illegal and constitutes marital discrimination unless the employer can prove that the policy is founded on a reasonable business necessity and that the qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved.	Obligations and Contracts
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Floro, Jr. (31st March 2006)	AK855285 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	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.	The Supreme Court ruled to relieve Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. of his functions as Judge of RTC Branch 73, Malabon City due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that rendered him unfit to discharge judicial functions, while awarding him back wages for 3 years on equitable grounds.	Philosophy of Law
Antonio vs. Reyes (10th March 2006)	AK471421 484 SCRA 353 , G.R. No. 155800	Petitioner Leonilo Antonio and respondent Marie Ivonne Reyes met in August 1989 and married in 1990. Their union produced a child who died five months after birth. The couple's relationship quickly deteriorated due to what the petitioner described as the respondent's unusual and deceitful behavior. After a brief separation and a failed attempt at reconciliation, the petitioner left the respondent for good in November 1991. This led him to file a petition for nullity of marriage, claiming that the respondent's constant and elaborate fabrications about her life were manifestations of a deep-seated psychological incapacity to assume the fundamental duties of marriage.	A party's pathological inability to abide by the truth, manifesting as a persistent and constant pattern of fabricating stories about one's self, occupation, and background, is a psychological incapacity that renders one incognitive of the essential marital obligations of mutual trust, respect, and fidelity, and thus constitutes a valid ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.	Persons and Family Law Article 36, Family Code
Executive Secretary vs. Southwing Industries, Inc. (20th February 2006)	AK861204 518 Phil. 103 , G.R. No. 164171 , G.R. No. 164172 , G.R. No. 168741	On December 12, 2002, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 156, "Providing for a Comprehensive Industrial Policy and Directions for the Motor Vehicle Development Program and its Implementing Guidelines." Article 2, Section 3.1 of EO 156 prohibited the importation into the country, inclusive of the Subic Bay Freeport, of all types of used motor vehicles, subject to limited exceptions. This was intended to rationalize the importation of used motor vehicles and enhance the competitiveness of the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry. Respondents, entities operating within the Subic Bay Freeport and engaged in the business of importing and trading used motor vehicles, challenged this provision.	Article 2, Section 3.1 of Executive Order No. 156, prohibiting the importation of used motor vehicles, is valid and constitutional in its application to the Philippine territory outside the secured area of the Subic Bay Freeport, but it is ultra vires and void in its application to the presently secured fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area (the "Secured Area" of the Subic Bay Freeport as defined in EO 97-A), because such application exceeds the President's delegated authority and unreasonably modifies the freeport status established by RA 7227.	Constitutional Law I
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Verchez (31st January 2006)	AK180962 481 SCRA 384 , G.R. No. 164349	On January 21, 1991, Editha Hebron Verchez was confined at the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital. Her daughter, Grace Verchez-Infante, sent an urgent telegram through RCPI to her sister, Zenaida Verchez-Catibog, in Quezon City, with the message "Send check money Mommy hospital." The purpose was to secure immediate financial aid for their mother's medical needs. The failure to receive a timely response caused distress and confusion within the family, leading them to believe Zenaida was ignoring their plea for help.	A telecommunications company that fails to deliver a telegram promptly due to its own negligence is liable for damages; its liability is based on _culpa contractual_ to the sender and quasi-delict to the intended recipient and other affected family members. Gross negligence in the performance of its contractual obligation, such as an inordinate delay without notifying the sender, amounts to bad faith and justifies the award of moral damages.	Persons and Family Law Article 26, New Civil Code
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. PLDT (15th December 2005)	AK383011 478 SCRA 61 , 514 Phil. 255 , G.R. No. 140230	PLDT sought a tax refund/credit for indirect taxes paid on imported equipment, citing Section 12 of RA 7082. The BIR and lower courts disagreed on whether the franchise’s “in lieu of all taxes” clause covered indirect taxes.	PLDT’s “in lieu of all taxes” franchise clause exempts only direct taxes on its franchise/earnings, not indirect taxes like VAT; however, advance sales and compensating taxes collected during 1992–1994 were erroneous and refundable.	Statutory Construction
Agulto vs. Tecson (29th November 2005)	AK349241 476 SCRA 395 , 512 Phil. 760 , G.R. No. 145276	Respondent William Z. Tecson filed an action for damages against petitioners Rolando Agulto, Maxima Agulto, Cecille Tenorio, and Maribel Mallari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, alleging malicious prosecution.	Service of notice of pre-trial on the counsel of record (or on the party if they have no counsel) is mandatory under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; failure to serve such notice renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings null and void for violating the party's right to due process, and constitutes grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Pimentel, Jr. vs. Exec. Secretary Ermita (13th October 2005)	AK992362 509 Phil. 567 , G.R. No. 164978	The case arose after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed several individuals as acting secretaries of various executive departments in August 2004, while the 13th Congress was in its regular session and the Commission on Appointments had already been constituted. Petitioners, who are members of the Senate, questioned the legality of these appointments, arguing they bypassed the confirmation process required by the Constitution.	The President of the Philippines has the constitutional and statutory power to appoint department secretaries in an acting capacity without the consent of the Commission on Appointments, even while Congress is in session, as such appointments are temporary measures to fill vacancies and ensure the continuous performance of executive functions.	Constitutional Law I
Republic vs. Orbecido III (5th October 2005)	AK557171 G.R. No. 154380 , 472 SCRA 114	The case arose from a legal ambiguity concerning the application of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The provision's text appears to apply only to "mixed marriages" (between a Filipino and a foreigner at the time of celebration). This case presented a situation of first impression where a marriage was initially between two Filipino citizens, but one party later acquired foreign citizenship and obtained a divorce, raising the question of whether the remaining Filipino spouse was still bound by the marital tie under Philippine law.	Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code, which capacitates a Filipino spouse to remarry after their alien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad, applies even if both parties were Filipino citizens at the time of marriage, provided that one spouse later becomes a naturalized foreign citizen and then secures the divorce decree; the reckoning point for the application of the provision is the citizenship of the parties at the time the valid divorce is obtained.	Persons and Family Law
Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals (30th September 2005)	AK025163 508 Phil. 193 , G.R. No. 128959	The case arose from a criminal complaint for libel filed by Cirse "Choy" Torralba, a broadcast journalist with programs on radio stations DYLA and DYFX in Cebu City, which aired over a large portion of the Visayas and Mindanao. The complaint was against Segundo Lim, who paid for an advertisement, and Ciriaco "Boy" Guingguing, the editor-publisher of the Sunday Post, a weekly newspaper circulated in Bohol, Visayas, and Mindanao, where the advertisement was published.	A publication containing truthful information about criminal cases filed against a public figure, even if it tends to cause dishonor or discredit, is not libelous if it was not published with actual malice—that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not—as such publication falls within the bounds of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression concerning matters of public interest.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita (1st September 2005)	AK134713 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	The enactment of Republic Act No. 9337 stemmed from the government's need to address a mounting budget deficit and generate significant revenue to stabilize the country's fiscal situation. The law aimed to restructure the Value-Added Tax (VAT) system by expanding its base, increasing the rate (with a standby authority for the President to raise it further), and introducing measures intended to improve tax administration and collection efficiency as part of a broader fiscal reform agenda.	Republic Act No. 9337 is constitutional; its enactment did not violate the procedural requirements of the Constitution regarding the origination of revenue bills or the amendment process, and its substantive provisions, including the President's standby authority to increase the VAT rate and the limitations on input tax credits, do not constitute undue delegation of legislative power, nor do they violate the due process, equal protection, uniformity, or progressivity clauses of the Constitution.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. vs. David (25th August 2005)	AK092221 468 SCRA 63 , 505 Phil. 181 , G.R. No. 129928	Respondent Virgilio S. David, a supplier of electrical hardware, entered into a transaction with petitioner Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MOELCI II) concerning the supply of a 10 MVA Power Transformer. A dispute arose regarding the nature of the document governing the transaction and MOELCI II's alleged failure to pay the agreed price, leading David to file a suit for specific performance and damages.	A preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses pleaded in an answer, as provided under Section 5, Rule 16 of the old Rules of Court (now Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules), is not mandatory but rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court; its denial is not correctible by certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.	Civil Procedure I Motion
Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. vs. Torres (29th July 2005)	AK371894 465 SCRA 47 , 503 Phil. 42 , G.R. No. 132527	Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992) aimed to convert former U.S. military bases into productive economic zones to promote development in Central Luzon. It created the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) with tax incentives but did not explicitly extend these privileges to other zones like Clark. Several executive issuances, including Executive Orders No. 80 and 97-A, sought to implement these incentives in both SSEZ and CSEZ, prompting legal challenges from businesses outside these zones.	The Supreme Court ruled that portions of Executive Order No. 97-A and related issuances were unconstitutional for allowing tax-free removal of goods from the Subic Special Economic Zone to other parts of the Philippines and extending incentives to Clark Special Economic Zone without statutory basis.	Statutory Construction
Sen. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary (6th July 2005)	AK539131 501 Phil. 303 , G.R. No. 158088	The Philippines, through its Charge d' Affaires, signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on December 28, 2000. The Rome Statute establishes the ICC to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, and its provisions require ratification, acceptance, or approval by signatory states for it to become binding. Petitioners, concerned with human rights and the enforcement of international criminal law, urged the executive department to transmit the signed Statute to the Senate for its concurrence to complete the ratification process.	The President of the Philippines possesses the discretionary power to ratify treaties, including the decision of whether and when to submit a signed treaty to the Senate for concurrence; this act is not a ministerial duty compellable by a writ of mandamus.	Constitutional Law I
Herrera vs. Alba (15th June 2005)	AK188258 460 SCRA 197 , 499 Phil. 185 , G.R. No. 148220	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.	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
Portic vs. Cristobal (22nd April 2005)	AK058410 456 SCRA 577 , 496 Phil. 456 , G.R. No. 156171	Spouses Portic sold property to Anastacia Cristobal under an agreement that included conditions about payment of a balance. A dispute arose when Cristobal registered the title in her name despite allegedly not fully paying the balance, and Spouses Portic sought to quiet title, claiming the sale was void due to non-payment.	The Supreme Court held that the agreement was a contract to sell, and because the vendee failed to fully pay the purchase price, ownership of the property did not transfer to her. Consequently, the action for quieting of title filed by the vendors was deemed proper and not prescribed as they remained in possession and legal owners of the property.	Property and Land Law
National Housing Authority vs. Court of Appeals (13th April 2005)	AK266478 456 SCRA 17 , 495 Phil. 693 , G.R. NO. 148830	President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 481 reserving a 120-hectare NHA-owned land for the National Government Center (NGC). Later, Proclamation No. 1670 segregated seven hectares from the NGC and granted MSBF usufructuary rights over it, to be determined by future survey. MSBF occupied an area exceeding seven hectares and leased a portion to BGC. NHA, under Memorandum Order No. 127 which revoked the reserved status of the remaining 50 hectares, sought to demolish BGC's facilities, leading BGC to file for injunction.	The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court to order a joint survey by NHA and MSBF to determine the precise metes and bounds of the seven-hectare usufruct granted to MSBF, ensuring contiguity and inclusion of MSBF's major existing facilities as much as possible within that area, while also ensuring MSBF respects the seven-hectare limit and vacates any area exceeding it.	Property and Land Law
City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr. (12th April 2005)	AK416215 455 SCRA 308 , 495 Phil. 289 , G.R. No. 118127	Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) questioned the validity of Ordinance No. 7783, which included motels and inns among the prohibited establishments in the Ermita-Malate area, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the City Council's powers.	Ordinance No. 7783 is an invalid exercise of police power because it violates the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and exceeds the regulatory powers granted to the City of Manila under the Local Government Code.	Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction Police Power