De Los Santos v Yatco (106 PHIL 745)

Article IX (B), Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. (2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination. (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. (4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign. (5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees. (6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law.

Facts:

Petitioner files for certiorari to revoke the order of respondent Judge Yatco for cancelling his previous order for execution on the parcel of land owned by the petitioner. The said parcel of land is being occupied by Fernando Mendoñez with an agreement to pay in installment the said land to the petitioners and that he shall voluntarily vacate the land and the payments he previously made shall be forfeited in favor of the plaintiff. A civil case was filed by the petitioner against Mendoñez for failure to pay as per agreement of both parties. Petitioner later filed a motion for execution to take the land back. Defendant Mendoñez moved for postponement to give both parties sufficient time to come to an agreement which was allowed by the respondent judge. It was settled by both parties that Mendoñez will secure a GSIS loan however when he was ready to make the payment the petitioner refused to abide with their agreement and now asking for a higher amount of money for payment. Finding no justification on the issuance of the writ of execution, Judge Yatco quashed said order hence this petition for certiorari based on lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion.

Acena v Civil Service Commission 193 SCRA 623 (1991)

FACTS:

This is a petition for certiorari to annul the resolution of the Civil Service Commission which set aside the order of the Merit Systems Protection Board declaring the herein petitioner as the legitimate Administrative Officer of Rizal Technological Colleges. Acena was assigned as Admin. Officer by then President of Rizal Technological Colleges and was subsequently promoted as Associate Professor on temporary status pending his compliance to obtain a Master’s Degree while assuming the position of Acting Admin Officer at the same time. The Board of Trustees designated Ricardo Salvador as Acting Admin Officer and pursuant to the same, the new College President Dr. Estolas revoked the designation of the petitioner as acting Admin Officer. Petitioner sent a letter to the CSC stating his desire to keep his appointment as Admin Officer instead of Associate Professor. Thus the latter’s appointment was withdrawn. He also filed a complaint for injunction of damages to Dr. Estolas assailing the validity of his dismissal from his position as violation of security of tenure. He filed another complaint for illegal termination against Dr. Estolas before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The CSC opined that Acena is still the Admin Officer since his appointment as Asso. Prof. was withdrawn. Dr. Estolas filed petition for review to the Office of the President. The Presidential Staff Director referred the complaint back to the CSC. In the dispositive portion of its resolution, the CSC finds the action of Dr. Estolas valid and set aside the previous opinion made by the CSC and the order of the MSPB. The petitioner files a petition for certiorari against the CSC decision on jurisdictional issue.

Flores v Drilon (223 SCRA 568)

FACTS:

The constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227, otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992," under which respondent Mayor Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), is challenged with prayer for prohibition, preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Said provision provides the President the power to appoint an administrator of the SBMA provided that in the first year of its operation, the Olongapo mayor shall be appointed as chairman and chief of executive of the Subic Authority. Petitioners maintain that such infringes to the constitutional provision of Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the Constitution, which states that "no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public officer or position during his tenure," The petitioners also contend that Congress encroaches upon the discretionary power of the President to appoint.

Saligumba v COA (117 SCRA 669)

Article IX (D), Section 2.  Section 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post- audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. 
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties. 

Saligumba v COA (117 SCRA 669)

FACTS:

This is a petition for review of the decision rendered by the COA regarding the Administrative case filed by petitioner against Leonardo Estella, Auditing Examiner III of the Auditor’s office of Misamis Occidental. The charge was that the respondent raped Editha Saligumba on several occasions. The COA dropped the administrative complaint due to insufficient evidence. Saligumba petition the court to review such action taken by the COA.

Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary (194 SCRA 317)

Article IX (B), Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including Government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary (194 SCRA 317)

FACTS: The petitioner are assailing the Executive Order No. 284 issued by the President allowing cabinet members, undersecretary or asst. secretaries and other appointive officials of the executive department to hold 2 positions in the government and government corporations and to receive additional compensation. They find it unconstitutional against the provision provided by Section 13, Article VII prohibiting the President, Cabinet members and their deputies to hold any other office or employment. Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B further states that “Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries." In the opinion of the DOJ as affirmed by the Solicitor General, the said Executive Order is valid and constitutional as Section 7 of Article IX-B stated “unless otherwise allowed by law” which is construed to be an exemption from that stipulated on Article VII, section 13, such as in the case of the Vice President who is constitutionally allowed to become a cabinet member and the Secretary of Justice as ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council.

Tobias v Abalos 239 SCRA 106 G.R. No. L-114783 December 8, 1994

Facts:

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong.” Prior to the enactment of the assailed statute, the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. The petitioners contend on the following:

(1) Article VIII, Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675 contravenes from the "one subject-one bill" rule provided in the Constitution by involving 2 subjects in the bill namely (1) the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city; and (2) the division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.

(2) The division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional districts under Section 49 of the assailed law has resulted in an increase in the composition of the House of Representatives beyond that provided in Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution.

(3) The said division was not made pursuant to any census showing that the subject municipalities have attained the minimum population requirements.

(4) That Section 49 has the effect of preempting the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts pursuant to Sec. 5(4) of the Constitution stating that “within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW NOTES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW NOTES

By: Evelyn Chua Bergantinos-De Matias

PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

(Lambino et al. vs Comelec GR No. 174153)

3 Ways to Amend Constitution:

1. thru Congress by ¾ of votes by its members } can propose both revision & amendment

2. thru Constitutional Commission                    } of Constitution

3. thru People’s Initiative   à may only propose an amendment of the Constitution

Requirements for People’s Initiative:

1. People must author and sign the proposal with no agent or representative allowed to sign on their behalf.
2. The full text of the proposed amendments must be written on the face of the petition or attached to it.

PARTY LIST INVIOLABLE PARAMETERS:

(Veterans vs Comelec GR no. 136781)

1. 20% Allocation à combined no, of all party list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the House of Representative
2. 2% Threshold  à only parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party list system are qualified to have a seat in the House
3. 3-seat Limit  à each qualified party, regardless of the no, of votes it actually obtained is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats only – 1 qualifying and 2 additional seats
4. Proportionate Representation  à the additional seat which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total no. of votes

GUIDELINES FOR POLITICAL PARTIES TO BE REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM

(Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs Comelec  GR NO. 147589)

1. Must represent marginalized and under-represented sectors
2. Major political parties must comply with this statutory policy
3. Must be subject to Constitutional prohibition against religious sects
4. Party must not be disqualified under RA 7941 (Party List System Act)
5. Party must not be an adjunct to projects funded by the govt.
6. Party and its representatives must comply with the law requirements
7. The nominee must represent a marginalized or under-represented sector
8. The nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation.

ANIMOS MANINDI  à  intention to return permanently and reside in the place of origin

ANIMOS REVERTINDI à continuously going back to the place of residence

THE PASSAGE OF BILL IN THE PHILIPPINES

THE PASSAGE OF BILL

(Source: Senate of the Philippines)

Summary

The following is a summary of how a bill becomes a law:

Filing/Calendaring for First Reading

A bill is filed in the Office of the Secretary where it is given a corresponding number and calendared for First Reading.

First Reading

Its title, bill number, and author’s name are read on the floor, after which it is referred to the proper committee. (note the 1 subject – 1 title rule)

Committee Hearings/Report

Committee conducts hearings and consultation meetings. It then either approves the proposed bill without an amendment, approves it with changes, or recommends substitution or consolidation with similar bills filed.

Calendaring for Second Reading

The Committee Report with its approved bill version is submitted to the Committee on Rules for calendaring for Second Reading.

Second Reading

Bill author delivers sponsorship speech on the floor. Senators engage in debate, interpellation, turno en contra, and rebuttal to highlight the pros and cons of the bill. A period of amendments incorporates necessary changes in the bill proposed by the committee or introduced by the Senators themselves on the floor.

WILD VALLEY SHIPPING CO. vs. CA 342 SCRA 213 October 6, 2000

“PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION DOCTRINE”

Facts:

The Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc., private respondent herein, arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore. Upon the completion of the loading and when the vessel was ready to leave port, an official pilot of Venezuela, was designated by the harbour authorities in Puerto Ordaz to navigate the Philippine Roxas through the Orinoco River. The Philippine Roxas experienced some vibrations when it entered the San Roque Channel. The vessel proceeded on its way, with the pilot assuring the watch officer that the vibration was a result of the shallowness of the channel. The master (captain) checked the position of the vessel and verified that it was in the centre of the channel. The Philippine Roxas ran around in the Orinoco River, thus obstructing the ingress and egress of vessels. As a result of the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by herein petitioner Wild valley Shipping Company, Ltd., was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on that day. Subsequently, Wild valley Shipping Company, Ltd. filed a suit with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch III against Philippine President Lines, Inc. and Pioneer Insurance Company (the underwriter/insurer of Philippine Roxas) for damages in the form of unearned profits, and interest thereon amounting to US $400,000.00plus attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of litigation.

BELLIS vs BELLIS 20 SCRA 358 G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

FACTS:

Amos Bellis, a US citizen, died a resident of Texas. He left two wills -- one devising a certain amount of money to his first wife and three illegitimate children and another, leaving the rest of his estate to his seven legitimate children. Before partition, the illegitimate children who are Filipinos opposed on the ground that they are deprived of their legitimes.

ISSUE:

Whether the applicable law is Texas law or Philippine laws

OH HEK HOW vs REPUBLIC 29 SCRA 94

Facts:

Petitioner Oh Hek How having been granted naturalization through his petition filed a motion alleging that he had complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 530 and praying that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as such citizen and issued the corresponding certificate of naturalization. The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte issued forthwith an order authorizing the taking of said oath. On that same date, petitioner took it and the certificate of naturalization was issued to him. The Government seasonably gave notice of its intention to appeal from said order of February9, 1966 and filed its record on appeal among the grounds that the oath was taken prior to judgment having been final and executory.

Issue:

- Is the oath valid

- Whether or not a permission to renounce citizenship is necessary from the Minister of the Interior of Nationalist China.

Bank of the Philippine Island vs. Reynald Suarez G.R. No. 167750, March 15, 2010

Facts:

Suarez represents a client who wants to buy parcels of land without having to directly deal with the land owners. They made arrangements that Suarez will make the transactions on his behalf to make it appear he is the one buying the lots. The client issued a check from Rizal Commercial Banking Co. to be credited to the checking account of Suarez with BPI in the amount of P19,129,100.00 as consideration to the lots. Knowing that the bank observes a 3-day clearing check policy, he asked his secretary to call BPI if the RCBC check was already credited to his account on the same day the check was issued by his client. Upon the confirmation of his secretary from BPI that the amount was already credited to his account, he subsequently issued 5 checks to the land owners and left to the US for a vacation the next day. He was thereafter informed by his secretary that the 5 checks were dishonored on June 16, 1997, the same day the 5 checks were issued and he incurred charges because of it. On June 19, 1997, the payees again presented the 5 checks and this time they were honored rendering the account of Suarez to be sufficiently funded. Suarez demanded an apology from BPI and for the reversal of the charges incurred from his account. His checks were apparently returned due to “drawn against insufficient funds” (DAIF) instead of “drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD). Upon examination of the checks, Suarez insisted that the checks were tampered where the DAIF mark on the check was changed to DAUD. He sued the bank for damages and rejected the bank’s offer to reverse the charges from his account. The RTC ruled in favor of Suarez awarding him actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the RTC decision after establishing that there were indeed intercalations made on the DAIF marking to make it appear as DAUD. The court finds it proper to award moral and exemplary damages because Suarez could be criminally held liable in violation of BP 22 if the reason of dishonoring the check is due to DAIF. Although he may not have been liable for a criminal prosecution, he also suffered humiliation from his client because the land owners aborted their transaction thinking he is not capable of fulfilling his obligation. The act of reversion of the bank on the charges imposed on Suarez’s account is tantamount to their admission of having committed blunder in handling the account of their client. The bank however insisted that Suarez is liable for paying the charges mandated by Philippine Clearing House Rules and Regulations (PCHRR).

Phil. Banking Corp. vs CA GR. No. 127469

Facts:

Leonilo Marcos filed in court a complaint for sum of money with damages against Phil. Banking Corporation (PBC). Marcos allegedly made a time deposit in 2 occasions the amt. of P664,897.67 and P764,897.67 through the persuasion of his friend Pagsaligan, one of the bank’s officials. The bank issued receipt for the first deposit while a letter-certification was issued for his second deposit by Pagsaligan. Pagsaligan kept the various time deposit certificates. When Marcos wanted to withdraw his time deposit and its accumulated interest Pagsaligan encouraged him to open a letter of credit to the bank by executing 3 trust receipts agreement. He signed blank forms for domestic letter of credits, trust receipts agreements and promissory notes. He was required to deposit 30% of the total amount of credit and his time deposit will secure the remaining 70% of the letters of credit.

He is now accusing the bank for unjustly collecting payment without deducting the 30% of his down payment and charging him with accumulating interests since his time deposit serves as collateral for his remaining obligation. He further denied making a loan of P500,000 with 25% interest per annum covered by a promissory note produced by the bank. The bank explained that the promissory notes he executed are distinct from the trust receipt agreement and denied falsifying the promissory note covering for the loan of P500,000. The evidence presented on the promissory note however is merely a machine copy of the document. The said loan was already paid by offsetting it from his time deposit.

Citibank vs spouses Cabamongan GR No. 146918, May 2, 2006

FACTS:

Spouses Cabamongan opened a joint and/or foreign currency time deposit in favor of their two children with Citibank. On a material date, a person who claimed to be Carmelita sought the pre-termination of the account. She presented identification cards to ascertain her identity to the then account officer. When she left with the money, she left an identification card. She filled up the necessary forms for pre-termination of deposits with the assistance of Account Officer Yeye San Pedro. While the transaction was being processed, she was casually interviewed by San Pedro about her personal circumstances and investment plans. Since the said person failed to surrender the original Certificate of Deposit, she had to execute a notarized release and waiver document in favor of Citibank, pursuant to Citibank's internal procedure, before the money was released to her. The release and waiver document was not notarized on that same day but the money was nonetheless given to the person withdrawing. The transaction lasted for about 40 minutes.

After said person left, San Pedro realized that she left behind an identification card. The account officer then called up the address. The spouses and their family knew of the incident. They were presently residing in the US and there was a prior incident wherein they got robbed in their house with the jewelry box and cards stolen. Spouses made several demands for the return of the amount but Citibank refused to do so.