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
Villanueva vs. Judicial and Bar Council (7th April 2015)	AK748641 755 SCRA 182 , 757 Phil. 534 , G.R. No. 211833	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.	The Supreme Court held that the JBC's policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge before qualifying for promotion to a second-level court is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection or due process clauses. The Court also ruled that the JBC must publish its policies to ensure transparency.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Leus vs. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove (28th January 2015)	AK411346 748 SCRA 378 , 752 PHIL. 186 , G.R. No. 187226	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.	Pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each other, and consequently conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of morality, does not amount to disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (MRPS).	Philosophy of Law
Araullo vs. Aquino (1st July 2014)	AK306263 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	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.	The Supreme Court issued a ruling declaring several aspects of the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program) unconstitutional, including: the withdrawal of unobligated allotments and their designation as savings before the fiscal year's end, the cross-border transfers of savings to offices outside the Executive branch, and the use of savings to fund programs, activities, or projects not covered by the GAA (General Appropriations Act). In applying the Operative Fact Doctrine, the Court established that while projects already implemented under the DAP in good faith would remain intact, the officials responsible for these actions could still be held accountable.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (8th April 2014)	AK609982 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	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.	The Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the RH Law and its IRR unconstitutional, specifically those related to abortifacients as redefined by the IRR, restrictions on conscientious objectors, lack of parental or spousal consent in specific situations, and limitations on health facilities operated by religious groups. However, the majority of the RH Law was upheld as constitutional.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Pryce Corporation vs. China Banking Corporation (18th February 2014)	AK989956 716 SCRA 207 , 727 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 172302	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that the principle of res judicata applied, affirming the validity of the rehabilitation court’s order approving Pryce Corporation’s rehabilitation plan. The Court also ruled that the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation do not require a hearing before issuing a stay order.	Philosophy of Law
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (11th February 2014)	AK238408 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	The proliferation of internet use and the rise of cyberspace activities brought about new avenues for communication, commerce, and information dissemination, but also new forms of criminal behavior collectively termed "cybercrimes." Recognizing the need to address these emerging threats, the Philippine government enacted Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, to define and penalize various offenses committed through or with the use of computer systems, and to provide for their prevention, investigation, and prosecution.	The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175) is constitutional in its general aim to regulate and punish cybercrimes, but specific provisions that unduly curtail fundamental rights, such as certain aspects of online libel, unsolicited commercial communications, real-time collection of traffic data without a warrant, and the power of the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data, are unconstitutional.	Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction Police Power; Freedom of Expression, Libel, and Cyberlibel
Villareal vs. People (1st February 2012)	AK884025 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	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.	The Supreme Court found the accused fraternity members guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, emphasizing that the death of Lenny Villa was the cumulative effect of the physical injuries inflicted during the initiation rites. The Court also dismissed the case against Artemio Villareal due to his death, extinguishing his criminal liability.	Philosophy of Law
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections (12th April 2011)	AK614037 663 Phil. 496 , G.R. No. 176951 , G.R. No. 177499 , G.R. NO. 178056	Congress enacted 16 individual Republic Acts ("Cityhood Laws") converting specific municipalities into cities, incorporating exemption clauses that excused them from the P100 million income requirement established by R.A. No. 9009, which had amended the Local Government Code (LGC). These municipalities had cityhood bills pending before R.A. No. 9009's enactment. The League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), representing existing cities, challenged these laws as unconstitutional for violating the LGC requirement that cityhood criteria be uniform and stated within the LGC itself, and for violating the equal protection clause. This led to a protracted legal battle involving multiple, conflicting Supreme Court rulings on the laws' validity, culminating in the February 15, 2011 Resolution upholding the laws, which petitioners sought to reconsider in the motion addressed by this present Resolution.	The Court's February 15, 2011 Resolution, upholding the constitutionality of the 16 Cityhood Laws, is affirmed, as the petitioners' procedural arguments regarding finality and jurisdiction, and substantive arguments regarding violations of the Constitution (Art. X, Secs. 6 & 10) and the Equal Protection Clause, are without merit; the prior judgment declaring the laws unconstitutional had not attained finality due to timely filed and entertained motions.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction Equal Protection
Air Transportation Office vs. Ramos (23rd February 2011)	AK801657 644 SCRA 36 , 659 Phil. 104 , G.R. No. 159402	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.	The ATO, as an agency engaged in proprietary functions, is not immune from suit and must compensate the Ramos spouses for the land used for the Loakan Airport.	Philosophy of Law
Bayan Muna vs. Romulo (1st February 2011)	AK939314 641 SCRA 244 , 656 Phil. 246 , G.R. No. 159618	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.	The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement as a proper executive agreement that does not require Senate concurrence.	Philosophy of Law
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC (8th April 2010)	AK675246 618 SCRA 32 , 632 Phil. 32 , G.R. No. 190582	The case arose from the COMELEC's refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad, an organization representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, as a party-list organization eligible to participate in the Philippine legislative elections under Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act).	The COMELEC cannot disqualify a party-list applicant based on religious or moral grounds lacking a clear secular justification, as doing so violates the non-establishment clause, the equal protection clause, and the rights to freedom of expression and association; moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing upon these fundamental rights.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Equal Protection
Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP) (14th October 2008)	AK025291 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	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.	The Supreme Court declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional due to violations of the right to information, lack of public consultation, and provisions that exceeded the government's authority and contradicted the Constitution and existing laws.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Interport Resources Corporation (6th October 2008)	AK516001 567 SCRA 354 , 588 Phil. 651 , G.R. No. 135808	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.	The Supreme Court held that the SEC has the authority to investigate violations of the Revised Securities Act, and the absence of implementing rules does not render the provisions of the Act ineffective. The Court also ruled that the SEC's investigation interrupted the prescription period for filing charges.	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)	AK206148 583 Phil. 391 , A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC	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.	The Supreme Court held that Amado Macasaet was guilty of indirect contempt for publishing false and baseless allegations of bribery within the Court, which tended to degrade the administration of justice.	Philosophy of Law
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
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
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	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.	PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion; however, the authority to promulgate decrees and the provision allowing the takeover of privately-owned public utilities or businesses without congressional authority are unconstitutional. The "acts of terrorism" portion of G.O. No. 5 is also 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 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.	The Supreme Court ruled that while executive privilege is valid, it cannot be invoked through a blanket requirement of prior presidential consent for all executive officials appearing before Congress. Such privilege must be explicitly claimed on a case-by-case basis with specific grounds stated.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
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
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	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act No. 9337 is constitutional, particularly the provisions granting the President the authority to raise the VAT rate to 12%. The law merely delegates the ascertainment of facts and does not constitute undue delegation of legislative power.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
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
Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan (19th October 2004)	AK604656 440 SCRA 578 , 483 Phil. 601 , G.R. No. 132164	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.	The Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and while Belagan was guilty of grave misconduct, his long service and unblemished record warranted a modified penalty of one-year suspension without pay instead of dismissal.	Philosophy of Law
Tecson vs. Commission on Elections (3rd March 2004)	AK663881 424 SCRA 277 , 468 Phil. 421 , G.R. No. 161434 , G.R. No. 161634 , G.R. No. 161824	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.	The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition to disqualify FPJ, as the petitioners failed to prove that FPJ deliberately misrepresented his citizenship in his certificate of candidacy.	Philosophy of Law
Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections (21st January 2004)	AK379108 420 SCRA 438 , 465 Phil. 385 , G.R. No. 148334	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.	The Supreme Court held that the special election to fill the Senate vacancy was validly held, and COMELEC’s failure to give formal notice did not invalidate the election. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.	Philosophy of Law
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (21st July 2003)	AK422271 407 SCRA 10 , 454 Phil. 504 , G.R. No. 104768	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).	The Supreme Court adjudicated that the PCGG lacked the requisite jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Major General Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano, as Ramas did not meet the definitional criteria of a "subordinate" of former President Ferdinand Marcos under Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A. The Court affirmed that such jurisdiction rightly resides with the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Solicitor General.	Philosophy of Law
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (19th November 2001)	AK529893 369 SCRA 394 , 421 Phil. 290 , G.R. No. 148560	Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (Plunder Law), faced charges before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly amassing ill-gotten wealth during his presidency. This case arose from his efforts to quash the Information against him by challenging the constitutionality of the Plunder Law itself, which defines and penalizes the crime of plunder.	Republic Act No. 7080, the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is constitutional and does not suffer from the vice of vagueness, nor does it violate the accused's rights to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The law provides ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters for the crime of plunder.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction Freedom of Expression
Cruz vs. Secretaryof Environment and Natural Resources (6th December 2000)	AK614139 347 SCRA 128 , 400 Phil. 904 , G.R. No. 135385	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.	The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) is constitutional by virtue of the tied vote (7-7). Because no majority ruling was reached, the law remained valid.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Velasco (13th September 2000)	AK988299 340 SCRA 207 , 394 Phil. 517 , G.R. No. 127444	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.	The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that an acquittal based on appreciation of evidence cannot be appealed by the government, as it would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.	Philosophy of Law
Miranda vs. Abaya (28th July 1999)	AK165397 311 SCRA 617 , 370 Phil. 642 , G.R. No. 136351	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.	A candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been denied due course and canceled cannot be substituted under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code. As a result, Joel G. Miranda’s substitution was void, and he was not legally elected as mayor.	Philosophy of Law
Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice (19th January 1999)	AK614452 297 SCRA 754 , 361 Phil. 73 , G.R. No. 132601	Petitioner Leo Echegaray was sentenced to death, a conviction affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 117472. Subsequently, in G.R. No. 132601, Echegaray challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8177 (Lethal Injection Law) and its implementing rules. While the Court upheld R.A. No. 8177, it invalidated certain sections of its implementing rules, which were later amended. As Echegaray's execution neared, he filed a Very Urgent Motion for a TRO, citing potential moves in Congress to review or repeal the death penalty law. The Supreme Court, in a Special Session on January 4, 1999, issued a TRO temporarily suspending his execution until June 15, 1999, to allow Congress time to deliberate on the matter. The public respondents then filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of this TRO.	The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to control and supervise the execution of its final and executory judgments to prevent injustice or when supervening events transpire that may render execution unjust or impossible; the issuance of a temporary restraining order on an execution is a valid exercise of judicial power and does not usurp executive or legislative prerogatives, but such a TRO may be lifted when the circumstances justifying its issuance no longer exist.	Civil Procedure I Philosophy of Law
Apiag vs. Cantero (12th February 1997)	AK734101 268 SCRA 47 , 335 Phil. 511 , A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070	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.	The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case against Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero, ruling that his personal misconduct did not directly relate to his judicial duties and therefore did not constitute gross misconduct in office. However, the Court emphasized that his personal behavior fell short of the ethical standards expected of a judge.	Philosophy of Law
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan (20th September 1996)	AK859521 330 Phil. 678 , 262 SCRA 122 , G.R. No. 105938 , G.R. No. 108113	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that attorney-client privilege can extend to client identity in exceptional cases where disclosure would implicate the client in the very activity for which legal advice was sought.	Philosophy of Law
Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections (18th September 1995)	AK456788 248 SCRA 300 , 318 Phil. 329 , G.R. No. 119976	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that Imelda Romualdez-Marcos met the residency requirement to run for Congress in the First District of Leyte, overturning the disqualification issued by the COMELEC.	Philosophy of Law
Santos vs. Court of Appeals (4th January 1995)	AK322702 240 SCRA 20 , 310 Phil. 21 , G.R. No. 112019	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.	The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the marriage, as required by Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity must be grave, rooted in the party's history, and incurable, and must exist at the time of the marriage.	Philosophy of Law
Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. (30th July 1993)	AK199582 224 SCRA 792 , 296 Phil. 694 , G.R. No. 101083	The case arose amidst growing concerns over rapid deforestation in the Philippines and its detrimental environmental consequences. Petitioners highlighted the significant reduction in the country's rainforest cover over 25 years, from approximately 16 million hectares to about 1.2 million hectares by 1987, and further to a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests. This deforestation was attributed largely to commercial logging operations sanctioned by Timber License Agreements (TLAs) issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), leading to severe environmental degradation, including water shortages, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and climate change impacts.	The Supreme Court held that petitioners, including minors representing their generation and generations yet unborn, have the legal standing (locus standi) to sue for the enforcement of their fundamental constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which is self-executing and judicially enforceable. Furthermore, Timber License Agreements (TLAs) are not contracts but mere privileges granted by the State, which can be amended, modified, replaced, or rescinded when the national interest so requires, and thus are not protected by the non-impairment of contracts clause.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulong (27th May 1993)	AK203562 222 SCRA 644 , G.R. No. 99327	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.	The Supreme Court held that the expulsion of the students by Ateneo de Manila University was valid, as the university followed due process in its disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized the institution's academic freedom to set and enforce its own rules and standards, including the right to dismiss students for serious violations.	Philosophy of Law
Jain vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People (28th September 1984)	AK063159 132 SCRA 359 , 217 Phil. 347 , No. L-63129	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.	The crime of theft, under Philippine law, requires physical taking or apoderamiento of the personal property of another; substituting train receipts to fraudulently claim ownership of sugar canes does not constitute theft because there was no physical taking of the canes themselves.	Philosophy of Law
Arianza vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission (28th February 1978)	AK230860 81 SCRA 698 , 171 Phil. 616 , No. L-43352	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.	The Supreme Court held that Arianza’s liver cirrhosis, though not directly caused by his employment, was aggravated by his working conditions, making it compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.	Philosophy of Law
Padua vs. Robles (29th August 1975)	AK406269 66 SCRA 485 , No. L-40486	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that Robles, as the employer of the negligent driver Punzalan, was subsidiarily liable for the civil indemnity awarded to the Paduas under the judgment in the criminal case, in accordance with Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The dismissal by the lower court was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.	Philosophy of Law
Sta. Maria vs. Lopez (18th February 1970)	AK782342 31 SCRA 637 , No. L-30773	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.	The transfer of Sta. Maria from his deanship to a Special Assistant role was a removal from office without due process, violating his constitutional right to security of tenure. The Court ordered his reinstatement as Dean.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Lava (16th May 1969)	AK022947 28 SCRA 72 , No. L-4974, , No. L-4975, , No. L-4976 , No. L-4977 , No. L-4978	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should only be charged with simple rebellion, as established in People v. Hernandez (1956), and that rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes like murder, arson, and robbery. The Court upheld the doctrine that when common crimes are committed in furtherance of rebellion, they are absorbed into the crime of rebellion itself.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Hernandez (30th May 1964)	AK952010 11 SCRA 223 , No. L-6025 , No. L-6026	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.	The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine in People v. Hernandez (1956), holding that rebellion absorbs all crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion and cannot be charged as a complex crime with murder, arson, or robbery. The Court modified the penalties imposed, aligning them with those prescribed for rebellion under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code.	Philosophy of Law
De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations (29th May 1964)	AK885506 11 SCRA 171 , 120 Phil. 168 , No. L-19555	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.	Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, which allows tenants to change their tenancy contract from share to leasehold, is constitutional and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts.	Philosophy of Law
Gerona vs. Secretary of Education (12th August 1959)	AK011651 106 Phil. 2 , No. L-13954	On June 11, 1955, Republic Act No. 1265, "An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsory in all Educational Institutions," was approved. Section 2 of this Act authorized the Secretary of Education to issue rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony. Consequently, on July 21, 1955, the Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8, series of 1955, detailing the rules for the compulsory daily flag ceremony in all public and private schools.	The requirement of observing the flag ceremony, including saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge, as mandated by Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of religion and the exercise thereof, as the flag ceremony is a civic and patriotic exercise, not a religious one, and compliance with such non-discriminatory school regulations is a prerequisite for attendance in public schools.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Freedom of Religion
Guido vs. Rural Progress Admlnistration (31st October 1949)	AK713211 84 Phil. 847 , No. L-2089	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.	The expropriation of private commercial land by the RPA for resale to tenants does not constitute public use and is therefore unconstitutional under Commonwealth Act No. 539 and the Philippine Constitution.	Philosophy of Law
Sunripe Coconut Product Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations (30th April 1949)	AK046797 83 Phil. 518 , No. L-2009	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.	Parers and shellers under the "pakiao" system are considered employees or laborers entitled to statutory benefits despite being paid on a piecework basis.	Philosophy of Law
Vargas vs. Rilloraza (26th February 1948)	AK301504 80 Phil. 297	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.	The Supreme Court declared Section 14 of the People's Court Act unconstitutional, as it violates the constitutional provisions on the appointment and qualifications of Supreme Court Justices and undermines the independence of the judiciary.	Philosophy of Law
Primicias vs. Fugoso (27th January 1948)	AK849130 80 Phil. 71 , No. L-1800	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.	The Supreme Court ruled that while the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of public assemblies, it cannot grant arbitrary discretion to a single official to deny such rights. The ordinance must be interpreted to allow regulation but not prohibition of lawful assemblies.	Philosophy of Law
Caraos vs. Daza (13th March 1947)	AK452149 76 Phil. 681 , No. L-442 , G.R. No. 874	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.	The Supreme Court held that there was no competent evidence to prove that Caraos was pardoned, and thus, his rearrest and continued imprisonment were lawful.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Cruz (21st February 1946)	AK026227 76 Phil. 169 , G.R. No. L-52	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.	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision with the elimination of subsidiary imprisonment, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band based on clear and convincing witness identification.	Philosophy of Law