case updates

7/24/2019 Case Updates

1/172

POLITICAL LAW

APRIL 2014

Espinas vs. COAG.R. No. 198271, April 1, 2014Perlas-Bernabe, J.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; COMMISSIONON AUDIT; POWERS:Since the Extraordinary andMicellaneo! Expene "EME# o$ Go%ern&ent'()ned and *ontrolled *orporation "G(**#,Go%ern&ent +inancial ntit!tion "G+# andtheir !-idiarie, are, p!r!ant to la),allocated -y their o)n internal o%ernin-oard, a oppoed to the EME o$ NationalGo%ern&ent Aencie "NGA# )hich areappropriated in the ann!al General

Appropriation Act "GAA# d!ly enacted -y*onre, there i a percei%a-le rational i&pet!$or the *o&&iion on A!dit "*oA# to i&poen!anced control &ea!re to chec/ i$ the EMEdi-!re&ent o$ G(**, G+ and their!-idiarie contit!te irre!lar, !nneceary,excei%e, extra%aant, or !nconciona-leo%ern&ent expendit!re.

CSC and DOST vs. ArandiaG.R. No. 19949, April 7, 2014

Brion, J.

PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O! PULIC

O!!ICERS: n!-ordination i de$ined a are$!al to o-ey o&e order, )hich a !perioro$$icer i entitled to i%e and ha%e o-eyed. heter& i&port a )ill$!l or intentional direard o$the la)$!l and reaona-le intr!ction o$ thee&ployer. n thi cae, the repondentco&&itted in!-ordination )hen he $ailed topro&ptly act on the !ne 13, 2000 &e&orand!&i!ed -y her !perior, Reional irectorNepo&!ceno, re&indin her o$ her d!tie toi&&ediately t!rn o%er doc!&ent to andexchane roo& ain&ent )ith the ne)Ad&initrati%e ($$icer einate, Enr. 5!cena.he !-6ect &e&orand!& )a a la)$!l order

i!ed to en$orce Special (rder No. 2, . o$2000 reainin the repondent $ro&Ad&initrati%e to lannin ($$icer, and )hich)arranted the repondent o-edience andco&pliance. :;< =e ee in the repondentinitial inaction her deli-erate choice not to acton the !-6ect &e&oranda> he )aited !ntil thereol!tion o$ her &otion $or reconideration o$her reain&ent "that he $iled on !ne 27,2000# -e$ore he act!ally co&plied. he er%ice)o!ld $!nction %ery ine$$iciently i$ thee typeo$ dilatory action )o!ld -e allo)ed.

I"#$n% vs. O&'$a

G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014Mendoza, J.

(UDICIAL DEPARTMENT; (UDICIAL RE)IEW: he*o!rt doe not ha%e the !n-ridled a!thority to

r!le on 6!t any and e%ery clai& o$contit!tional %iolation. !ripr!dence i replete)ith the r!le that the po)er o$ 6!dicial re%ie) ili&ited -y $o!r exactin re?!iite, %i@. "a#there &!t -e an act!al cae or contro%ery> "-#the petitioner &!t poe locus standi> "c# the?!etion o$ contit!tionality &!t -e raied atthe earliet opport!nity> and "d# the i!e o$contit!tionality &!t -e the li &ota o$ thecae. Bence, there i dee&ed an act!al cae o$contro%ery )hen petitioner ha%e ho)n thatthe cae i o -eca!e &edical practitioner or&edical pro%ider are in daner o$ -eincri&inally proec!ted !nder the RB 5a) $or

%a!e %iolation thereo$, partic!larly p!-lichealth o$$icer )ho are threatened to -edi&ied $ro& the er%ice )ith $or$eit!re o$retire&ent and other -ene$it. +or thi reaon,*o!rt can exercie it po)er o$ 6!dicial re%ie)o%er the contro%ery.

R*p+#,i& vs. Trans+ni$n C$rp.G.R. No. 19190, April 21, 2014

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; (UDICIAL RECOURSE ANDRE)IEW: he r!le on exha!tion o$ad&initrati%e re&edie pro%ide that i$ a

re&edy )ithin the ad&initrati%e &achinery cantill -e reorted to, then !ch re&edy ho!ld -eexha!ted $irt -e$ore the co!rt 6!dicial po)ercan -e o!ht. S!ch exha!tion o$ ad&initrati%ere&edie i not %iolated )hen the *o!rt deniethe &otion to di&i $iled -y one o$ the partieconiderin that the latter $!rtherreconideration or appeal o$ the in%etiationreport i not a condition precedent to the $ilino$ the other party re%erion co&plaint. hihold tr!e epecially i$ !ch part )hoe &otionto di&i )a denied, ha%e already $iled anan)er and preented it e%idence and $or&allyo$$ered the a&e. t i )ell'eta-lihed that the

to!chtone o$ d!e proce i the opport!nity to-e heard.

Disini vs. S*&r*-ar $/ (+s-i&*G.R. No. 20, April 22, 2014

Abad, J.

ILL O! RITS; EUAL PROTECTION:t i )ell!ndertood that the riht o$ $ree peech i nota-ol!te at all ti&e and !nder allcirc!&tance. here are certain )ell'de$inedand narro)ly li&ited clae o$ peech, thepre%ention and p!nih&ent o$ )hich ha%e ne%er-een tho!ht to raie any *ontit!tional

pro-le&. hee incl!de the le)d and o-cene,the pro$ane, the li-elo!, and the in!ltin or

1


2/172

C$ihtinD )ord thoe )hich, -y their %ery!tterance, in$lict in6!ry or tend to incite ani&&ediate -reach o$ the peace. At -otto&, thedeepet concern o$ the &o%ant ee& to -e the$act that the o%ern&ent ee/ to re!lateacti%itie in the internet at all. +or the&, thenternet i a place )here e%eryone ho!ld -e$ree to do and ay )hate%er he or he )ant.F!t that i anarchical. Any ood thin can -econ%erted to e%il !e i$ there are no la) toprohi-it !ch !e.

a+dini vs. COMELECG.R. No. 207900, April 22, 2014

Peralta, J.

ELECTION LAW; REMEDIES AND (URISDICTIONIN ELECTION LAW: he *(ME5E* en banc!-e?!ently declared the certi$icate o$candidacy o$ Bay!dini a cancelled. Bay!dini

contend that *(ME5E* &ita/enly declared hiprocla&ation a n!ll and %oid )hen there i nopetition $or ann!l&ent o$ procla&ation $iledaaint hi&. he S!pre&e *o!rt r!led that*(ME5E* ha the po)er to declare a candidateprocla&ation -y %irt!e o$ a deciion in a petition$or cancellation )itho!t a petition $orann!l&ent o$ procla&ation $iled aaint thecandidate. t i r!led that the declaration o$n!llity o$ the procla&ation o$ a candidate i aneceary cone?!ence )hen a certi$icate o$candidacy ha -een cancelled.

U"a,i vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 20974, April 22, 2014Velasco, Jr., J.

LOCAL O)ERNMENT; MUNICIPALCORPORATIONS: San!nian anl!nod o$*a-anat!an *ity paed Reol!tion No. 18'2011, re?!etin the reident to declare thecon%erion o$ *a-anat!an *ity $ro& aco&ponent city o$ the pro%ince o$ N!e%a Eci6ainto a hihly !r-ani@ed city "B*#. etitionerA!relio M. &ali contend that ?!ali$iedreitered %oter o$ the entire pro%ince o$ N!e%aEci6a ho!ld participate in the ple-icite. heS!pre&e *o!rt r!led that it )a deter&ined in

the cae that the chane that )ill re!lt $ro&the con%erion are too !-tantial that there i aneceity $or the pl!rality o$ thoe that )ill -ea$$ected to appro%e it. Si&ilar to theen!&erated act in the contit!tional pro%iion,con%erion )ere $o!nd to re!lt in &aterialchane in the econo&ic and political riht o$the people and 5G a$$ected. Gi%en the $ar'reachin ra&i$ication o$ con%ertin the tat!o$ a city, )e held that the ple-icitere?!ire&ent !nder the contit!tional pro%iionho!ld e?!ally apply to con%erion a )ell.

Ci- $/ *n*ra, San-$s vs. COA

G.R. No. 19949, April 22, 2014Leonen, J.

LOCAL O)ERNMENT; POWERS O! TE LOCALO)ERNMENT:he &ayor o$ General Santo *ityi!ed an order )hich pro%ided eparation-ene$it $or ic/ly e&ployee. he ($$ice o$ theSolicitor General ?!etion the aid order. heS!pre&e *o!rt r!led that in order to -e a-le todeli%er &ore e$$ecti%e and e$$icient er%ice,the la) allo) local o%ern&ent !nit the po)erto reorani@e. n doin o, they ho!ld -e i%enlee)ay to entice their e&ployee to a%ail o$e%erance -ene$it that the local o%ern&entcan a$$ord. Bo)e%er, local o%ern&ent !nit&ay not pro%ide !ch )hen it a&o!nt to a!pple&entary retire&ent -ene$it che&e.

A%d*ppa vs. O"#+ds"anG.R. No. 14373, April 2, 2014

Leonardo-De Castro, J.

(UDICIAL DEPARTMENT; (UDICIAL RESTRAINT:Not e%ery error in the proceedin, or e%eryerroneo! concl!ion o$ la) or $act, contit!tera%e a-!e o$ dicretion. =hile the proec!tor,or in thi cae, the in%etiatin o$$icer o$ the($$ice o$ the (&-!d&an, &ay err or e%ena-!e the dicretion loded in the& -y la), !cherror or a-!e alone doe not render their acta&ena-le to correction and ann!l&ent -y theextraordinary re&edy o$ certiorari. here?!ire&ent $or 6!dicial intr!ion i till $or thepetitioner Adeppa to de&ontrate clearly thatthe ($$ice o$ the (&-!d&an co&&itted ra%ea-!e o$ dicretion a&o!ntin to lac/ or exceo$ 6!ridiction. nle !ch a clearde&ontration i &ade, the inter%ention idiallo)ed in de$erence to the doctrine o$ non'inter$erence. he *o!rt adhere to a policy o$non'inter$erence )ith the in%etiatory andproec!torial po)er o$ the ($$ice o$ the(&-!d&an. Bo)e%er, other than hi o)nalleation, !picion, and !r&ie, Adeppadid not !-&it independent or corro-oratine%idence in !pport o$ the p!rported conpiracy.a/in a)ay Adeppa conpiracy theory, thero!nd $or hi etition no loner ha%e a le totand on.

S'+ vs. D**G.R. No. 1827, April 2, 2014

Brion, J.

ILL O! RITS; DUE PROCESS: S!$$icientco&pliance )ith the re?!ire&ent o$ d!eproce exit )hen a party i i%en a chance to-e heard thro!h hi &otion $or reconideration.Since the National F!rea! o$ n%etiation i anin%etiati%e aency )hoe $indin are &erelyreco&&endatory, the denial o$ the riht o$ d!eproce co!ld not ha%e ta/en place.> the NF$indin )ere till !-6ect to the proec!torand the Secretary o$ !tice action $orp!rpoe o$ $indin the exitence o$ pro-a-leca!e.

2


3/172

Land an3 vs. P*ra,-aG.R. No. 182704, April 2, 2014

Villarama, Jr., J.

ILL O! RITS; EMINENT DOMAIN; (UST

COMPENSATION: $ the i!e o$ 6!tco&penation i not ettled prior to the paaeo$ R.A. No. 337, it ho!ld -e co&p!ted inaccordance )ith the aid la), altho!h theproperty )a ac?!ired !nder .. No. 27.

CSC vs. C$r-*sG.R. No. 20010, April 2, 2014

Abad, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; ACCOUNTAILITO! PULIC O!!ICERS:*orteH appoint&ent a (I in the *BR -y the *o&&iion En Banc, )herehi $ather i a &e&-er, i co%ered -y the

prohi-ition aaint nepoti&. *o&&iionerMallariH a-tention $ro& %otin did not c!re thenepotitic character o$ the appoint&ent -eca!ethe e%il o!ht to -e a%oided -y the prohi-itiontill exit.

(UNE 2014

Ei5ansan-$s vs. Sp*&ia, Pr*sid*n-ia, Tas3

!$r&* 167G.R. No. 20393, !ne 2, 2014

Mendoza, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS: Micond!ct ha a leal and!ni$or& de$inition. t i de$ined a an intentional)rondoin or a deli-erate %iolation o$ a r!le o$la) or tandard o$ -eha%ior, epecially -y ao%ern&ent o$$icial. A &icond!ct i ra%e)here the ele&ent o$ corr!ption, clear intentto %iolate the la) or $larant direard o$eta-lihed r!le are preent. Ei6anantoapparently $ailed in one o$ hi d!tie andreponi-ilitie a an e%al!ator )hich )a tocond!ct a phyical %eri$icationJinpection o$&an!$act!rin and plant $acilitie. =hile he$ollo)ed the intr!ction and trainin i%en tohi& -y hi !perior at the *enter, he neithercond!cted a phyical %eri$icationJinpection onthe act!al o$$ice pre&ie and the&an!$act!rin and plant $acilitie o$ E%erreen,nor did he cond!ct !ch %eri$ication orinpection on E%erreen !pplier andexporter. e$initely, a a Senior ax Specialit,Ei6ananto o!ht to /no) that there )a aneceity to thoro!hly %eri$y the a!thenticity o$tax credit application -e$ore procein thea&e. here i no do!-t that the petitioner,toether )ith the other e%al!ator, co&&itted adeli-erate direard o$ eta-lihed r!le )hichcan only -e conidered a ra%e &icond!ct.

ar&*,$na vs. Li"

G.R. No. 189171, !ne , 2014Sereno, C.J.

ILL O! RITS; DUE PROCESS: Farcelonaclai& that the *i%il Ser%ice R!le )ere %iolated-y *hairperon SeKere. Farcelona &ie thepoint that trict co&pliance )ith the r!le o$proced!re in ad&initrati%e cae i not re?!ired-y la). Ad&initrati%e r!le o$ proced!re ho!ld-e contr!ed li-erally in order to pro&ote theiro-6ect a )ell a to ait the partie ino-tainin a 6!t, peedy and inexpeni%edeter&ination o$ their repecti%e clai& andde$ene. he riht to a peedy dipoition o$cae i !aranteed -y the *ontit!tion. heconcept o$ peedy dipoition i $lexi-le. he$act that it too/ the *S* ix year to reol%e theappeal o$ Farcelona doe not, -y itel$,a!to&atically pro%e that he )a denied hi rihtto the peedy dipoition o$ hi cae. A$ter all, a&ere &athe&atical rec/onin o$ the ti&e

in%ol%ed i not !$$icient, a the $act andcirc!&tance pec!liar to the cae &!t alo -econidered.

SR M*-a,s8 In&.8 vs. R**sG.R. No. 179339, !ne 4, 2014

Del Castillo, J.

NATIONAL ECONOM AND PATRIMON;E9PLORATION8 DE)ELOPMENT8 ANDUTILIATION O! NATURAL RESOURCES:*ontendin that the 0,000 'M prod!ction li&itdoe not apply to &all'cale &iner !nder RA7073, the ENR then erred in declarin that theyha%e exceeded the allo)ed ann!al extraction o$&ineral ore. he S* ho)e%er r!led that theENR, -ein the aency &andated to protect theen%iron&ent and the co!ntry nat!ralreo!rce, it ha the po)er to pro&!late theneceary RR to i%e e$$ect to &inin la).S!ch -ein the cae it interpretation a to the0,000'M li&it pro%ided !nder RA 7073 ia!thoritati%e.

R*p+#,i& vs. Mana,$G.R. No. 19202, !ne 4, 2014

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

(UDICIAL DEPARTMENT; (UDICIAL RE)IEW;MOOT AND ACADEMIC: A cae or i!e iconidered &oot and acade&ic )hen it ceae topreent a 6!ticia-le contro%ery -y %irt!e o$!per%enin e%ent, o that an ad6!dication o$the cae or a declaration on the i!e )o!ld -eo$ no practical %al!e or !e. n !ch intance,there i no act!al !-tantial relie$ )hich apetitioner )o!ld -e entitled to, and )hich)o!ld -e neated -y the di&ial o$ thepetition. *o!rt enerally decline 6!ridictiono%er !ch cae or di&i it on the ro!nd o$&ootne, a a 6!d&ent in a cae )hichpreent a &oot ?!etion can no loner -een$orced. :he< R* rendition o$ the eciion

3


4/172

-y %irt!e o$ )hich the aet !-6ect o$ the aidcae )ere all $or$eited in $a%or o$ theo%ern&ent, are !per%enin e%ent )hich ha%erendered the eential i!e in thi cae &ootand acade&ic, that i, )hether or notrepondent ho!ld ha%e -een allo)ed -y theR* to inter%ene on the ro!nd that they ha%e aleal interet in the $or$eited aet.

OS vs. CAG.R. No. 199027, !ne 9, 2014

Rees, J.

LOCAL O)ERNMENT; MUNICIPALCORPORATIONS: (n the &atter o$ co!nelrepreentation $or the o%ern&ent, theAd&initrati%e *ode i not the only la) thatdel%e on the i!e. Speci$ically $or localo%ern&ent !nit, the 5G* li&it the la)yer)ho are a!thori@ed to repreent the& in co!rt

action. he (SG co!ld not repreent at anytae a p!-lic o$$icial )ho )a acc!ed in acri&inal cae. hi )a neceary to pre%ent aclear con$lict o$ interet in the e%ent that the(SG )o!ld -eco&e the appellate co!nel o$ theeople o$ the hilippine once a 6!d&ent o$ thep!-lic o$$icialH con%iction )a -ro!ht onappeal. n thi cae, *A co&&itted ra%e a-!eo$ dicretion a&o!ntin to lac/ or exce o$6!ridiction in i!in the aailed reol!tion)hich o-liated the (SG to repreent theM!nicipality o$ Sa!iran. S!ch r!lin direardedthe pro%iion o$ the 5G* that %eted excl!i%ea!thority !pon leal o$$icer to -e co!nel o$local o%ern&ent !nit. E%en the e&ploy&ent o$a pecial leal o$$icer i exprely allo)ed -y thela) only !pon a trict condition that the actionor proceedin )hich in%ol%e the co&ponent cityor &!nicipality i ad%ere to the pro%incialo%ern&ent or to another co&ponent city or&!nicipality.

Priva-ia-i$n and Mana%*"*n- O//i&* vs.

S-ra-*%i& A,,ian&* D*v*,$p"*n- C$rp.G.R. No. 200402 L No. 208127, !ne 18,

2014Sereno, C.J.

LOCAL O)ERNMENT; POWERS O! TE LOCALO)ERNMENT:+ra!d i not pre!&ed> hence, it&!t -e alleed and pro%ed. he anno!nce&ento$ the p!rchae price on the day o$ the -iddindoe not contit!te $ra!d )hen it )a done$ollo)in the protocol.

(UL 2014

Ara+,,$ vs. *ni%n$ A


5/172

!e o$ any a%in in the re!lar appropriationa!thori@ed in the GAA $or prora& and pro6ecto$ any depart&ent, o$$ice or aency to co%er ade$icit in any other ite& o$ the re!larappropriation. A !ch, Section 9 %iolate the&andate o$ Section 2"# -eca!e the latterexprely li&it the a!thority o$ the reident to

a!&ent an ite& in the GAA to only thoe in hio)n epart&ent o!t o$ the a%in in otherite& o$ hi o)n epart&ent appropriation.Accordinly, Section 9 cannot er%e a a %alida!thority to 6!ti$y cro'-order tran$er !nderthe A. A!&entation !nder the A )hich are&ade -y the Exec!ti%e )ithin it depart&enthall, ho)e%er, re&ain %alid o lon a there?!iite !nder Section 2"# are co&plied)ith.

E9ECUTI)E DEPARTMENT; POWERS: heExec!ti%e cannot circ!&%ent the prohi-ition -y*onre o$ an expendit!re $or a rora&,

Acti%ity or ro6ect "A# -y reortin to eitherp!-lic or pri%ate $!nd. Nor co!ld the Exec!ti%etran$er appropriated $!nd re!ltin in anincreae in the -!det $or one A, $or -y odoin the appropriation $or another A inecearily decreaed. he ter& o$ -othappropriation )ill there-y -e %iolated.

E9ECUTI)E DEPARTMENT; POWERS; POWERSRELATI)E TO APPROPRIATION MEASURES: heA )a a o%ern&ent policy or trateydeined to ti&!late the econo&y thro!haccelerated pendin. n the context o$ theA adoption and i&ple&entation -ein a

$!nction pertainin to the Exec!ti%e a the &ainactor d!rin the F!det Exec!tion Stae !nderit contit!tional &andate to $aith$!lly exec!tethe la), incl!din the GAA, *onre did notneed to leilate to adopt or to i&ple&ent theA. *onre co!ld appropriate -!t )o!ld ha%enothin &ore to do d!rin the F!de Exec!tionStae. ndeed, appropriation )a the act -y)hich *onre Cdeinate a partic!lar $!nd, oret apart a peci$ied portion o$ the p!-licre%en!e or o$ the &oney in the p!-lic trea!ry,to -e applied to o&e eneral o-6ect o$o%ern&ental expendit!re, or to o&e indi%id!alp!rchae or expene. A pointed o!t in onzales

)s. Rauiza, C:i


6/172

ILL O! RITS; EUAL PROTECTION: hechallene -aed on the contra%ention o$ theE?!al rotection *la!e, )hich $oc!e on thereleae o$ $!nd !nder the A to leilator,lac/ $act!al and leal -ai. he alleationa-o!t Senator and *onre&en -ein !na)areo$ the exitence and i&ple&entation o$ the A,and a-o!t o&e o$ the& ha%in re$!ed toaccept !ch $!nd )ere !n!pported )ithrele%ant data. Alo, the clai& that the Exec!ti%edicri&inated aaint o&e leilator on thero!nd alone o$ their recei%in le than theother co!ld not o$ itel$ )arrant a $indin o$contra%ention o$ the E?!al rotection *la!e.he denial o$ e?!al protection cla!e o$ any la)ho!ld -e an i!e to -e i!e to -e raied only-e partie )ho !ppoedly !$$er it, and, inthee cae, !ch partie )o!ld -e the $e)leilator clai&ed to ha%e -een dicri&inatedaaint in the releae o$ $!nd !nder the A.he reaon $or the re?!ire&ent i that only !ch

a$$ected leilator co!ld properly and $!lly-rin to the $ore )hen and ho) the denial o$e?!al protection occ!rred, and explain )hythere )a a denial in their it!ation. here?!ire&ent )a not &et here. *one?!ently,the *o!rt )a not p!t in the poition todeter&ine i$ there )a a denial o$ e?!alprotection. o ha%e the *o!rt do o depite theinade?!acy o$ the ho)in o$ $act!al and leal!pport )o!ld -e to co&pel it to pec!late, andthe o!tco&e )o!ld not do 6!tice to thoe $or)hoe !ppoed -ene$it the clai& o$ denial o$e?!al protection ha -een &ade.

Land an3 vs. E+s*#i$8 (r.G.R. No. 13014, !ly 2, 2014

Brion, J.

ILL O! RITS; EMINENT DOMAIN; (USTCOMPENSATION: etitioner $iled the intantpetition on the ro!nd that the R*'SA* ra%elya-!ed it dicretion in deter&inin the 6!tco&penation )itho!t e%en coniderin the%al!ation $actor en!&erated !nder R.A. No.337 and the $or&!la pro%ided $or -y the AR.he S* r!led that tho!h the R*SA* &ay relaxthe $or&!la application to $it the $act!alit!ation -e$ore it, it &!t, ho)e%er, explain

and 6!ti$y in clear ter& the reaon $or anyde%iation $ro& the precri-ed $actor and$or&!la. +or $ailin to pro%ide any -ai $or the%al!ation it &ade, the S* held that the R*'SA*ra%ely a-!ed it dicretion, th! et aide the%al!ation it &ade $or ha%in -een &ade in !tterdireard o$ the la) para&eter.

$ vs. R*p+#,i&G.R. No. 202809, !ly 2, 2014,

Mendoza, J.

CITIENSIP; NATURALIATION ANDDENATURALIATION: he record o$ the caeho) that the 6oint a$$ida%it exec!ted -y Go

)itnee did not eta-lih their o)n?!ali$ication to tand a !ch in a nat!rali@ationproceedin. n t!rn, Go did not preente%idence pro%in that the peron he preented)ere credi-le. n the )ord o$ the *A, Che didnot pro%e that hi )itnee had ood tandinin the co&&!nity, /no)n to -e honet and!priht, rep!ted to -e tr!t)orthy and relia-le,and that their )ord &ay -e ta/en at $ace %al!e,a a ood )arranty o$ the )orthine o$ Go.D=hile there i no ho)in that Go )itnee)ere o$ do!-t$!l &oral inclination, there )ali/e)ie no indication that they )ere peron)hoe ?!ali$ication )ere at par )ith there?!ire&ent o$ the la) on [email protected]&ply p!t, no e%idence )a e%er pro$$ered topro%e the )itnee ood tandin in theco&&!nity, honety, &oral !prihtne, and&ot i&portantly, relia-ility. A a cone?!ence,their tate&ent a-o!t Go do not poe the&ea!re o$ credi-ility de&anded o$ in

nat!rali@ation cae. hi lac/ o$ credi-ility onthe part o$ the )itnee, !n$ort!nately,)ea/en or render $!tile Go clai& o$)orthine. An applicant $or hilippineciti@enhip )o!ld care$!lly teti$y a to hi?!ali$ication, placin e&phai on hi oodtrait and character. hi i expected o$ a peron)ho lon to ain -ene$it and ad%antae o$hilippine citi@enhip -eto). here$ore, aerio! ae&ent o$ an applicant )itnee,-oth a to the credi-ility o$ their peron andtheir %ery teti&ony, i an eential $acet o$nat!rali@ation proceedin that &ay not -e-r!hed aide.

Nava, vs. COMELECG.R. No. 20781, !ly 8, 2014

Rees, J.

ELECTION LAW; CANDIDAC: :Na%al $iled a*erti$icate o$ *andidacy "*(*# a pro%incial&e&-er -!t it )a oppoed -eca!e he ialleedly %iolatin the three'ter& li&it i&poed!pon electi%e local o$$icial.< he dra$ter o$ o!r*ontit!tion are in aree&ent a-o!t the poi-leattendant e%il i$ there )o!ld -e no li&it to re'election. Not)ithtandin their con$lictinpre$erence on )hether the ter& li&it )o!ld

di?!ali$y the elected o$$icial perpet!ally orte&porarily, they decided that only threeconec!ti%e election to the a&e poition )o!ld-e allo)ed. herea$ter, the p!-lic o$$icial canonce aain %ie $or the a&e pot pro%ided there-e a ap o$ at leat one ter& $ro& hi or her latelection.

DAR vs. Sp$+s*s Di$sdad$ S-a. R$"ana

and R*s+rr*&&i$n Ra"$sG.R. No. 18290, !ly 9, 2014

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

ILL O! RITS; EMINENT DOMAIN; (USTCOMPENSATION:Settled i the r!le that )hen

6


7/172

the ararian re$or& proce i till inco&plete,a in thi cae )here the 6!t co&penation $orthe !-6ect land ac?!ired !nder 27 ha yet to-e paid, 6!t co&penation ho!ld -edeter&ined and the proce concl!ded !nder RA337, )ith 27 and E( 228 ha%in &ere!ppletory e$$ect. hi &ean that 27 and

E( 228 only apply )hen there are ap in RA337> )here RA 337 i !$$icient, 27 and E(228 are !pereded. +or p!rpoe o$ deter&inin6!t co&penation, the $air &ar/et %al!e o$ anexpropriated property i deter&ined -y itcharacter and it price at the ti&e o$ ta/in. naddition, the $actor en!&erated !nder Section17 o$ RA 337, i.e., "a# the ac?!iition cot o$the land, "-# the c!rrent %al!e o$ li/epropertie, "c# the nat!re and act!al !e o$ theproperty, and the inco&e there$ro&, "d# theo)nerH )orn %al!ation, "e# the taxdeclaration, "$# the ae&ent &ade -yo%ern&ent aeor, "# the ocial and

econo&ic -ene$it contri-!ted -y the $ar&erand the $ar&)or/er, and -y the o%ern&ent tothe property, and "h# the non'pay&ent o$ taxeor loan ec!red $ro& any o%ern&ent $inancinintit!tion on the aid land, i$ any , &!t -ee?!ally conidered.

DAR vs. *ri>aG.R. No. 18901 L 1891, !ly 9, 2014

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

ILL O! RITS; EMINENT DOMAIN; (USTCOMPENSATION: !t co&penation i de$ineda the $!ll and $air e?!i%alent o$ the property

ta/en $ro& it o)ner -y the expropriator. +orp!rpoe o$ deter&inin 6!t co&penation, the$air &ar/et %al!e o$ an expropriated property ideter&ined -y it character and it price at theti&e o$ ta/in. n addition, the $actoren!&erated !nder Section 17 o$ RA 337, aa&ended, i.e., "a# the ac?!iition cot o$ theland, "-# the c!rrent %al!e o$ li/e propertie, "c#the nat!re and act!al !e o$ the property andthe inco&e there$ro&, "d# the o)ner )orn%al!ation, "e# the tax declaration, "$# theae&ent &ade -y o%ern&ent aeor, "#the ocial and econo&ic -ene$it contri-!ted -ythe $ar&er and the $ar& )or/er, and -y the

o%ern&ent to the property, and "h# the non'pay&ent o$ taxe or loan ec!red $ro& anyo%ern&ent $inancin intit!tion on the aidland, i$ any, &!t -e e?!ally conidered.

La%$& vs. Ma,a%aG.R. No. 18478, !ly 9, 2014

Villarama, Jr., J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; ACCOUNTAILITO! PULIC O!!ICERS:A pre%io!ly held -y the*o!rt, C*oll!ion i&plie a ecret !ndertandin)here-y one party play into another hand $or$ra!d!lent p!rpoe. t &ay ta/e place -et)een

and e%ery contractor re!ltin in noco&petition, in )hich cae, the o%ern&ent &ay

declare a $ail!re o$ -iddin. *oll!ion &ay aloen!e -et)een contractor and the chair&anand &e&-er o$ the FA* to i&!late or ri the-iddin proce, th! in!rin the a)ard to a$a%ored -idder, to the pre6!dice o$ theo%ern&ent aency and p!-lic er%ice. +or !chact o$ the chair&an and the &e&-er o$ the

FA*, they &ay -e held ad&initrati%ely lia-le$or cond!ct roly pre6!dicial to the -etinteret o$ the o%ern&ent er%ice. *oll!ion -yand a&on the &e&-er o$ the FA* andJorcontractor !-&ittin their -id &ay -edeter&ined $ro& their collecti%e act oro&iion -e$ore, d!rin and a$ter the -iddinproce. he co&plainant are -!rdened topro%e !ch coll!ion -y clear and con%incine%idence -eca!e i$ o pro%ed, the reponi-leo$$icial &ay -e di&ied $ro& the o%ern&enter%ice or &eted e%ere ad&initrati%e anction$or dihonety and cond!ct pre6!dicial to theo%ern&ent er%ice.D

*irs $/ Di$sdad$ M*nd$a vs. DPWG.R. No. 2084, !ly 9, 2014

Car"io, J.

LOCAL O)ERNMENT; POWERS O! TE LOCALO)ERNMENT: he contract that the =Bentered into )ith Mendo@a $or the contr!ctiono$ ac/ae I and O o$ the BA )ere done inthe exercie o$ it o%ern&ental $!nction.Bence, petitioner cannot clai& that there )aan i&plied )ai%er -y the =B i&ply -yenterin into a contract. h!, the *o!rt o$Appeal correctly r!led that the =B en6oy

i&&!nity $ro& !it and &ay not -e !ed )itho!tit conent.

=a,ip+nan n% Da"aan% Ma'i'irap8 In&.8

vs. R$#r*d$G.R. No. 20090, !ly 22, 2014

Brion, J.

(UDICIAL DEPARTMENT; (UDICIAL RE)IEW: t ia r!le $ir&ly entrenched in o!r 6!ripr!dencethat the co!rt )ill not deter&ine thecontit!tionality o$ a la) !nle the $ollo)inre?!iite are preent "1# the exitence o$ an

act!al cae or contro%ery in%ol%in a con$lict o$leal riht !cepti-le o$ 6!dicialdeter&inationP "2# the exitence o$ peronal and!-tantial interet on the part o$ the partyraiin the contit!tional ?!etionP "# reco!reto 6!dicial re%ie) i &ade at the earlietopport!nityP and "4# the reol!tion o$ thecontit!tional ?!etion &!t -e neceary to thedeciion o$ the cae. he S!pre&e *o!rt hacare$!lly read the petition and )e concl!dethat they $ail to co&pellinly ho) the neceityo$ exa&inin the contit!tionality o$ Section28"a# and "-# o$ RA 7279 in the liht o$ Section1 and 3, Article o$ the 1987 *ontit!tion.

D*,a Cr+ vs. P*$p,*

7


8/172

G.R. No. 200748, !ly 2, 2014Sereno, C.J.

ILL O! RITS; SEL!?INCRIMINATION CLAUSE:he contit!tional riht o$ an acc!ed aaintel$'incri&ination procri-e the !e o$ phyical

or &oral co&p!lion to extort co&&!nication$ro& the acc!ed and not the incl!ion o$ hi-ody in e%idence )hen it &ay -e &aterial. nthe intant cae, ho)e%er, the *o!rt $ail to eeho) a !rine a&ple co!ld -e &aterial to thechare o$ extortion. he dr! tet, -einilleally ta/en, i there$ore inad&ii-le $or%iolatin the riht aaint el$'incri&ination o$the acc!ed and cannot -e !ed aaint hi&.

Air,i/- Asia C+s-$"s8 In&.8 vs. CAG.R. No. 18334, !ly 28, 2014

Brion, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; TE CI)IL SER)ICE:Section 9 o$ RA 9280 exprely repealed the** pro%iion "Section 401 to 409# on thec!to& -ro/er pro$eion. Section 9 o$ RA9280 $!rther declared that all la) and partthereo$ )hich are inconitent )ith RA 9280 aredee&ed &odi$ied, !pended, or repealedaccordinly. n lie! o$ the Foard o$ Exa&iner,RA 9280 created the RF*F )hoe &e&-er areappointed -y the reident $ro& a lit o$reco&&endee !-&itted -y the R* )hich ha!per%iory and ad&initrati%e control o%er theRF*F. Sini$icantly, RA 9280 excl!ded the F(**o&&iioner a &e&-er o$ the RF*F. he

excl!ion o$ the F(* *o&&iioner a a &e&-ero$ the RF*F e%ince the leilati%e intent tore&o%e any po)er he pre%io!ly exercied o%erc!to& -ro/er, and to tran$er the !per%iion,control and re!lation o$ thi pro$eion to theRF*F. hi intent i li/e)ie apparent $ro& areadin o$ the po)er ranted to the RF*F. Fycon$errin thee po)er on the RF*F, thedeclared policy o$ RA 9280 to pro$eionali@e thepractice o$ the c!to& -ro/er pro$eion iexec!ted and $!l$illed. Altho!h )e cannot denythat the F(* *o&&iioner ha the &andate toen$orce tari$$ la) and pre%ent &!lin, theepo)er do not necearily incl!de the po)er to

re!late and !per%ie the c!to& -ro/erpro$eion thro!h the i!ance o$ *A( 2003.

P*$p,* vs. C$%a*dG.R. No. 2004, !ly 0, 2014

Leonen, J.

ILL O! RITS; SEARCES AND SEIURES:CStop and $ri/D earche ho!ld -e -alanced)ith the need to protect the pri%acy o$ citi@enin accordance )ith Article , Section 2 o$ the*ontit!tion. he -alance lie in the concept o$C!picio!neD preent in the it!ation )herethe police o$$icer $ind hi&el$ or herel$ in.

Experienced police o$$icer ha%e peronalexperience dealin )ith cri&inal and cri&inal

-eha%ior.. h!, a -aic criterion )o!ld -e thatthe police o$$icer, )ith hi or her peronal/no)lede, &!t o-er%e the $act leadin tothe !picion o$ an illicit act. n the cae at -ar,*oaed )a i&ply a paener carryin a -aand tra%elin a-oard a 6eepney. here )anothin !picio!, &oreo%er, cri&inal, a-o!tridin a 6eepney or carryin a -a. Bence theearch and ei@!re aaint the acc!ed i illeal-eca!e o$ the a-ence o$ the re?!iite o$C!picio!neD.

AUUST 2014

DAR vs. a,,*G.R. No. 17183, A!!t 11, 2014

Del Castillo, J.

ILL O! RITS; EMINENT DOMAIN; (USTCOMPENSATION: t ha -een the conitent

prono!nce&ent o$ the S* that the deter&inationo$ 6!t co&penation i -aically a 6!dicial$!nction. Alo, it i ettled that in theco&p!tation o$ 6!t co&penation $or land ta/en$or ararian re$or&, -oth Section 17 o$ Rep!-licAct No. 337 "RA 337 or the *o&preheni%eArarian Re$or& 5a) o$ 1988J*AR5# and the$or&!la precri-ed in the applica-leAd&initrati%e (rder o$ the epart&ent o$Ararian Re$or& "AR# ho!ld -e conidered.=hile the S* ac/no)lede that Galle etate)a expropriated to the extent o$ 3.827hectare, the co&p!tation o$ the exact a&o!nto$ 6!t co&penation re&ain an i!e that &!t

-e reol%ed, ta/in into conideration -othSection 17 o$ RA 337 and A( 3 and 11. here ith! a need to re&and the cae in order toproperly co&p!te the 6!t co&penation thatGalle and her heir are entitled to, incl!dininteret and attorney $ee, i$ any.

(ard*,*a vs. C'i*/ (+s-i&* S*r*n$G.R. No. 21181, A!!t 19, 2014

Mendoza, J.

ILL O! RITS; DUE PROCESS: :ardele@a )aexcl!ded $ro& the hortlit o$ candidate $or thepoition o$ retired !tice A-ad d!e to ?!etion

on hi interity. S!ch ?!etion aroe $ro& hi&ihandlin o$ an international cae, alleedextra'&arital a$$air and inider tradin.ardele@a alleed that he )a denied hi rihtto d!e proce ince he )a not i%en a&pleti&e to de$end hi&el$ and cro exa&ine the)itnee aaint hi&. he *o!rt r!led that< the$act that a proceedin i !i eneri and ii&preed )ith dicretion, ho)e%er, doe nota!to&atically denirate an applicantentitle&ent to d!e proce. t i )ell'eta-lihedin 6!ripr!dence that diciplinary proceedinaaint la)yer are sui *enerisin that they areneither p!rely ci%il nor p!rely cri&inal> they

in%ol%e in%etiation -y the *o!rt into the

8


9/172

cond!ct o$ one o$ it o$$icer, not the trial o$ anaction or a !it.

SEPTEMER 2014

MA N*-@$r38 In&.8 vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 207, Septe&-er 2, 2014Peralta, J.

ILL O! RITS; !REEDOM O! E9PRESSION:*ontendin that Sec. 9"a# o$ *(ME5E* Reol!tionNo. 931, li&itin the -roadcat and radioad%ertie&ent o$ candidate and politicalpartie $or national election poition to anareate total o$ 120 &in!te and 180 &in!terepecti%ely, to -e %iolati%e o$ the $reedo& o$the pre, the petitioner $iled the intantpetition prayin that aid *(ME5E* Reol!tion-e declared !ncontit!tional. +indin $or thepetitioner, the S* r!led that olitical peech i

one o$ the &ot i&portant expreion protected-y the +!nda&ental 5a). Accordinly, the a&e&!t re&ain !n$ettered !nle other)ie6!ti$ied -y a co&pellin tate interet. heaailed r!le on Careate'-aedD airti&e li&iti !nreaona-le and ar-itrary a it !nd!lyretrict and contrain the a-ility o$ candidateand political partie to reach o!t andco&&!nicate )ith the people. Bere, thead%erted reaon $or i&poin the Careate'-aedD airti&e li&it le%elin the playin $ield doe not contit!te a co&pellin tate interet)hich )o!ld 6!ti$y !ch a !-tantial retrictionon the $reedo& o$ candidate and political

partie to co&&!nicate their idea,philoophie, plat$or& and prora& o$o%ern&ent.

Ca+sin% vs. COMELECG.R. No. 19919, Septe&-er 9, 2014

Bersamin, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; ENERAL PRINCIPLES:he only peronnel &o%e&ent prohi-ited -y*(ME5E* Reol!tion No. 877 )ere tran$er anddetail. ran$er i de$ined in the Reol!tion aCany peronnel &o%e&ent $ro& one o%ern&entaency to another or $ro& one depart&ent,

di%iion, eoraphical !nit or !-di%iion o$ ao%ern&ent aency to another )ith or )itho!tthe i!ance o$ an appoint&ent>D )hile detail ade$ined in the Ad&initrati%e *ode o$ 1987 i the&o%e&ent o$ an e&ployee $ro& one aency toanother )itho!t the i!ance o$ an appoint&ent.n the intant cae, Mayor Firon act o$tran$errin the o$$ice pace o$ *a!in )arooted in hi po)er o$ !per%iion and controlo%er the o$$icial and e&ployee er%in in hilocal o%ern&ent !nit, in order to en!re the$aith$!l dichare o$ their d!tie and $!nction.Bi explanation that he tran$erred *a!in)or/ tation $ro& her oriinal o$$ice to hi o$$ice

in order to cloely !per%ie her a$ter hi o$$icerecei%ed co&plaint aaint her co!ld not -e

6!tly inored. Ierily, he therea$ter contin!edto per$or& her ta/, and !ninterr!ptedlyrecei%ed her alarie a the M!nicipal *i%ilReitrar e%en a$ter the tran$er to the ($$ice o$the Mayor. he i!ance o$ ($$ice (rder No. 1-y Mayor Firon detailin Felonio to the ($$ice o$the 5ocal *i%il Reitrar )a not proo$ o$ Mayor

Firon Qcrytal clear intentionQ to replace andtran$er her d!rin the election period.

Ari%$ vs. S@i/-G.R. No. 20310, Septe&-er 13, 2014

Villarama, Jr., J.

PULIC INTERNATIONAL LAW; TREAT::!--ataha Ree$ )a da&aed d!e to the $a!lto$ S G!ardian. he repondent ar!ed thatthey are i&&!ne $ro& !it and did notparticipate to N*5(S. he co!rt r!led< thatnon'&e&-erhip in the N*5(S doe not &eanthat the S )ill direard the riht o$ thehilippine a a *oatal State o%er it internal)ater and territorial ea. he co!rt th!expect the S to -ear Cinternationalreponi-ilityD !nder Art. 1 in connection )iththe SS G!ardian ro!ndin )hich ad%erelya$$ected the !--ataha ree$.

R*p+#,i& vs. AriasG.R. No. 188909, Septe&-er 17, 2014

Perez, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS: Repondent

reco&&endation $or appro%al doc!&ent $ore&erency repair and p!rchae in the a-enceo$ the inat!re and certi$ication -y the end'!er, in co&plete direard o$ exitin =Br!le, contit!te ro nelect o$ d!ty and ra%e&icond!ct )hich !ndo!-tedly re!lted in loo$ p!-lic $!nd there-y ca!in !nd!e in6!ry tothe o%ern&ent. he *o!rt held that a AitantF!rea! irector o$ the F!rea! o$ E?!ip&ent o$the =B, the Repondent cannot i&plyreco&&end appro%al o$ doc!&ent )itho!tdeter&inin co&pliance )ith exitin la), r!leand re!lation o$ the epart&ent. Bi d!tieentail re%ie) and e%al!ation o$ doc!&entpreented.

+*n$ vs. O"#+ds"anG.R. No. 191712, Septe&-er 17, 2014

Villarama, Jr., J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS: A &e&orand!& reardin!ideline on the *andidacy o$ *oop ($$icialand E&ployee in 5ocal, National and FaranayElection )a i!ed and cone?!ently appro%ed.etitioner i!ed another addreed to reionalelectri$ication director )hich re!lted to thedi&ial o$ Ranche@ a director. Ranche@ $iled

&otion $or reconideration to the NEA Foard o$Ad&initrator and &ade e%eral $ollo) !p -!t

9


10/172

)a re$erred to other o$$ice. he *o!rt r!ledthat petitioner %iolated R.A. 371 $or notrepondin to Ranche@ )ithin the precri-ed 1day. he *o!rt held that the la) e&phai@epro&ptne in attendin to re?!et &ade !pono%ern&ent o$$ice or aencie.

(a,$v*r vs. Os"*>aG.R. No. 209283, Septe&-er 2, 2014

Brion, J.

ELECTION LAW; CANDIDAC: Section 74, inrelation )ith Section 78 o$ the (&ni-! Election*ode o%ern the cancellation o$, and rant ordenial o$ d!e co!re to, the *(*. he co&-inedapplication o$ thee ection re?!ire that the$act tated in the *(* -y the )o!ld'-ecandidate -e tr!e, a any $ale repreentation o$a &aterial $act i a ro!nd $or the *(*cancellation or the )ithholdin o$ d!e co!re.

A


11/172

elii-ility. Be, there$ore, cannot -e appointed tothe poition o$ Aitant School i%iionS!perintendent in a per&anent capacity. he*i%il Ser%ice *o&&iion cannot -e co&pelled toattet to the per&anent appoint&ent o$repondent.

Na-i$na, Trans"issi$n C$rp.8 vs. COAG.R. No. 204800, (cto-er 14, 2014

Peralta, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; ENERAL PRINCIPLES:he entitle&ent to eparation pay !nder theERA la) doe not di?!ali$y the eparatede&ployee )ho i li/e)ie ?!ali$ied to recei%eloyalty a)ard p!r!ant to the *S* Me&orand!&*irc!lar. =hile Section 3 o$ the ERA 5a)pro%ide that thoe )ho a%ail the&el%e o$ theeparation pay hall tart their o%ern&enter%ice ane) i$ a-or-ed -y any o%ern&ent'o)ned !cceor co&pany, the CreetD relateonly to any and all eparation -ene$it d!e to ane&ployee once he i ter&inated or i$ he retire$ro& er%ice. he rant o$ loyalty a)ard and theeparation pay are not inconitent )ith eachother and they ha%e ditinct no-le p!rpoe. n$act, the entitle&ent o$ a ?!ali$ied e&ployee to-oth loyalty a)ard and eparation pay i notprocri-ed -y the 1987 *ontit!tion a rearddo!-le co&penation !nder Section 8 o$ ArticleO"F# thereo$.

AMECO II $ard $/ Dir*&-$rs vs. CASCONAG.R. No. 1739'3, (cto-er 20, 2014

Brion, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; POWERS O!ADMINISTRATI)E AENCIES: he NEAdiciplinary 6!ridiction o%er the petitionerte& $ro& it po)er o$ !per%iion and controlo%er re!lated electric cooperati%e and o%erthe -oard o$ director )ho &anae theiroperation. n the exercie o$ thi -road po)er,the NEA &ay ta/e pre%enti%e andJor diciplinary&ea!re incl!din the !penion, re&o%al andreplace&ent o$ any or all o$ the &e&-er o$ the-oard o$ director, o$$icer or e&ployee o$ thecooperati%e. he enact&ent in March 1990 o$the *ooperati%e *ode and R.A. No. 399eta-lihin the *A did not a!to&atically di%etthe NEA o$ it control o%er the NEA re!latedentitie.

O"#+ds"an vs. Ca#*r$G.R. No. 188033, (cto-er 22, 2014

Rees, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; ACCOUNTAILITO! PULIC O!!ICERS:(ppreion i alo /no)na ra%e a-!e o$ a!thority, )hich i a&ide&eanor co&&itted -y a p!-lic o$$icer, )ho!nder color o$ hi o$$ice, )ron$!lly in$lict !pon

any peron any -odily har&, i&prion&ent orother in6!ry. t i an act o$ cr!elty, e%erity, or

excei%e !e o$ a!thority. he delay in thereleae o$ !are alary hardly ?!ali$ie a anCact o$ cr!elty or e%erity or excei%e !e o$a!thority,D epecially )hen he contri-!ted tothe ca!e o$ the delay, that i, he !-&ittedher +or& 48 "aily i&e Record# $or !ne 2002only on !ly 11, 2002.

NO)EMER 2014

R*: A,,*%*d L$ss $/ $*s $/ C$p Pap*rA.M. No. 2008'2'S*, No%e&-er 10, 2014

Bersamin, J.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; CI)IL SER)ICECOMMISSION: here i ra%e &icond!ct )henthe ele&ent o$ corr!ption, clear intent to%iolate the la), or $larant direard o$eta-lihed r!le are preent. ihonety ide$ined a a dipoition to lie, cheat, decei%e or

de$ra!d> !ntr!t)orthine> lac/ o$ interity>lac/ o$ honety, pro-ity or interity in principle>lac/ o$ $airne and traiht $or)ardne. Fothro &icond!ct and dihonety are ra%eo$$ene that are p!niha-le -y di&ial e%en$or the $irt o$$ene. *ond!ct pre6!dicial to the-et interet o$ the er%ice i alo clai$ied a ara%e o$$ene !nder Section 22"t# o$ the(&ni-! R!le &ple&entin Foo/ I o$Exec!ti%e (rder No. 292 and other pertinent*i%il Ser%ice la), )ith the penalty $or the $irto$$ene -ein !penion $or ix "3# &onth andone "1# day to one "1# year, and $or the econdo$$ene -ein di&ial. he *i%il Ser%ice la)

and r!le contain no decription o$ )hat peci$icact contit!te the ra%e o$$ene o$ cond!ctpre6!dicial to the -et interet o$ the er%ice.Bo)e%er, 6!ripr!dence ha -een intr!cti%e,)ith the *o!rt ha%in conidered the $ollo)inact or o&iion a contit!ti%e o$ cond!ctpre6!dicial to the -et interet o$ the er%ice,na&ely "a# &iappropriation o$ p!-lic $!nd> "-#a-andon&ent o$ o$$ice> "c# $ail!re to report-ac/ to )or/ )itho!t prior notice> "d# $ail!re to/eep p!-lic record and property a$e> "e#&a/in $ale entrie in p!-lic doc!&ent> and "$#$ali$ication o$ co!rt order. +or &a/in $aletate&ent, co&&ittin per6!ry and tealin thecopy paper, A!tria and Glor are !ilty o$ ra%e&icond!ct, ro dihonety, and cond!ctpre6!dicial to the -et interet o$ the er%ice.heir di&ial $ro& the er%ice i the properpenalty, )ith $or$eit!re o$ retire&ent -ene$it,except accr!ed lea%e credit, and perpet!aldi?!ali$ication $ro& ree&ploy&ent in theGo%ern&ent. n addition, the record o$ the caeho!ld -e re$erred to the epart&ent o$ !tice$or in%etiation )ith a %ie) to the $ilin, i$)arranted, o$ the appropriate cri&inalproceedin.

)*,as&$ vs. O#isp$A.M. No. '1'130, No%e&-er 10, 2014

Rees, J.

11


12/172

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS:o te&per the harhne o$the r!le, ho)e%er, the *o!rt ha re$rained $ro&i&poin the extre&e penalty o$ di&ial in an!&-er o$ cae in the preence o$ &itiatin$actor. he *o!rt alo r!led that )here apenalty le p!niti%e )o!ld !$$ice, )hate%er&itep &ay -e co&&itted -y the e&ployeeo!ht not to -e %iited )ith a cone?!ence oe%ere. t i not only $or the la) concern $orthe )or/in&an> there i, in addition, hi $a&ilyto conider. ne&ploy&ent -rin !ntoldhardhip and orro) on thoe dependent on)ae earner. Applyin the rationale in thea$oreaid 6!dicial precedent and r!le, the*o!rt conider a &itiatin circ!&tance the$act that thi i the $irt in$raction o$ (-ipo and&ore i&portantly, the lac/ o$ -ad $aith on hipart in co&&ittin the act co&plained o$.

CAAP?EU vs. Civi, Avia-i$n A+-'$ri-G.R. No. 190120, No%e&-er 11, 2014

Villarama, Jr., J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; ENERAL PRINCIPLES:Apropo then i the *o!rt r!lin in apianann &a a/ani n* Ener* Re*ulator Board ).Barin, to )it ho)e%er, a-olition o$ an o$$ice andit related poition i di$$erent $ro& re&o%al o$an inc!&-ent $ro& hi o$$ice. A-olition andre&o%al are &!t!ally excl!i%e concept. +ro& aleal tandpoint, there i no occ!pant in ana-olihed o$$ice. =here there i no occ!pant,there i no ten!re to pea/ o$. h!, i&pair&ento$ the contit!tional !arantee o$ ec!rity o$ten!re doe not arie in the a-olition o$ ano$$ice. (n the other hand, re&o%al i&plie thatthe o$$ice and it related poition !-it andthat the occ!pant are &erely eparated $ro&their poition. Faed on the pre&ie that there)a a %alid a-olition o$ A(, in the a-ence o$any -ad $aith, )e r!le that the A( e&ployeeriht to ec!rity o$ ten!re )a not %iolated. nLecaroz ). Sandi*anbaan, the *o!rt helda-ent an expre or i&plied contit!tional ortat!tory pro%iion to the contrary, an o$$icer ientitled to tay in o$$ice !ntil hi !cceor iappointed or choen and ha ?!ali$ied. he

leilati%e intent o$ not allo)in holdo%er &!t-e clearly expreed or at leat i&plied in theleilati%e enact&ent, other)ie it i reaona-leto a!&e that the la)'&a/in -ody $a%or thea&e. he reaon $or the application o$ thehold'o%er principle i clearly tated alo inLecaroz, indeed, the la) a-hor a %ac!!& inp!-lic o$$ice, and co!rt enerally ind!le inthe tron pre!&ption aaint a leilati%eintent to create, -y tat!te, a condition )hich&ay re!lt in an exec!ti%e or ad&initrati%eo$$ice -eco&in, $or any period o$ ti&e, )holly%acant or !nocc!pied -y one la)$!lly a!thori@edto exercie it $!nction. hi i $o!nded on

o-%io! conideration o$ p!-lic policy, $or theprinciple o$ holdo%er i peci$ically intended to

pre%ent p!-lic con%enience $ro& !$$erin-eca!e o$ a %acancy and to a%oid a hiat! inthe per$or&ance o$ o%ern&ent $!nction.ndeed, the application o$ the hold'o%erprinciple preer%e contin!ity in the tranactiono$ o$$icial -!ine and pre%ent a hiat! ino%ern&ent. h!, cae o$ extre&e neceity6!ti$y the application o$ the hold'o%erprinciple. etitioner itel$ tate and thi *o!rt,)itho!t do!-t, aree that the *AA i anaency hihly i&-!ed )ith p!-lic interet. t io$ rational in$erence that a hiat! therein )o!ld-e diatro! not only to the econo&y, to!ri&and trade o$ the co!ntry -!t &ore o on thea$ety and ec!rity o$ aircra$t paener, &aythey -e +ilipino citi@en or $orein national.

CSC vs. Anda,A.M. No. SF'12'19', No%e&-er 18, 2014

Per Curiam

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS:Fy enain or coll!din )ithanother peron to ta/e the tet in hi -ehal$ andtherea$ter -y clai&in the re!ltant pain ratea hi, clinche the cae aaint hi&. Bence, -yperpetratin $ale elii-ility and lettin itre&ain on record, repondent concealed andditorted the tr!th in a &atter o$ $act rele%antto hi o$$ice. h!, i&ilar to the $ate o$ priore&ployee )ho $ali$ied their elii-ilityre?!ire&ent, )e catiate the ra%e o$$ene o$repondent -y i&poin !pon hi& the penalty o$di&ial $ro& er%ice.

San&'* vs. P*$p,*G.R. No. 20489, No%e&-er 19, 2014

Mendoza, J.

ILL O! RITS; SEARCES AND SEIURES: nthe cae at -ench, neither the in $larantedelicto arret nor the top ' and'$ri/ principle)a applica-le to 6!ti$y the )arrantle earchand ei@!re &ade -y the police operati%e onSanche@. A earch a an incident to a la)$!larret i anctioned -y the R!le o$ *o!rt. t-ear e&phai that the la) re?!ire that theearch -e incidental to a la)$!l arret.

here$ore it i -eyond ca%il that a la)$!l arret&!t precede the earch o$ a peron and hi-elonin> the proce cannot -e re%ered.Bere, the earch preceded the arret o$Sanche@. he arret o$ Sanche@ )a &ade onlya$ter the dico%ery -y S(1 A&pota o$ theha-! inide the &atch -ox. E%idently, )hathappened in thi cae )a that a earch )a $irt!nderta/en and then later an arret )ae$$ected -aed on the e%idence prod!ced -y theearch. =hen the police o$$icer chaed thetricycle, they had no peronal /no)lede to-elie%e that Sanche@ -o!ht ha-! $ro& thenotorio! dr! dealer and act!ally poeed theilleal dr! )hen he -oarded the tricycle. here)a no o%ert &ani$etation on the part o$

12


13/172

Sanche@ that he had 6!t enaed in, )aact!ally enain in or )a atte&ptin toenae in the cri&inal acti%ity o$ illealpoeion o$ ha-!. Ierily, pro-a-le ca!e inthi cae )a &ore i&ained than real. n thea&e %ein, there co!ld -e no %alid Ctop'and'$ri/D earch in the cae at -ench.

Pa%ad+an vs. CSCG.R. No. 20379, No%e&-er 19, 2014

Mendoza, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS: Moral t!rpit!de ha -eende$ined a e%erythin )hich i done contrary to6!tice, &odety, or ood &oral> an act o$-aene, %ilene or depra%ity in the pri%ateand ocial d!tie )hich a &an o)e hi$ello)&en, or to ociety in eneral, contrary tothe accepted and c!to&ary r!le o$ riht andd!ty -et)een &an and )o&an, or cond!ctcontrary to 6!tice, honety, &odety, or ood&oral. Not e%ery cri&inal act, ho)e%er,in%ol%e &oral t!rpit!de. *oniderin that theprincipal act p!nihed in the cri&e o$$ali$ication o$ p!-lic doc!&ent i the %iolationo$ the p!-lic $aith and the detr!ction o$ tr!tha therein ole&nly proclai&ed, the ele&ent o$the ad&initrati%e o$$ene o$ con%iction o$ acri&e in%ol%in &oral t!rpit!de clearly exit inthi cae.

R*-ir*d SP04 La+d vs. P*$p,*G.R. No. 19902, No%e&-er 19, 2014

Per Curiam

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; DE FACTOO!!ICERS:n order $or the de +actodoctrine toapply, all o$ the $ollo)in ele&ent &!t conc!r"a# there &!t -e a de 6!re o$$ice> "-# there&!t -e color o$ riht or eneral ac?!iecence-y the p!-lic> and "c# there &!t -e act!alphyical poeion o$ the o$$ice in ood $aith.he exitence o$ the $oreoin ele&ent irather clear in thi cae. ndo!-tedly, there i ade 0ure o$$ice o$ a 2nd Iice'Exec!ti%e !de.!de eralta alo had a colora-le riht to theaid o$$ice a he )a d!ly appointed to !chpoition and )a only di%eted o$ the a&e -y%irt!e o$ a !per%enin leal technicality thati, the operation o$ Section , *hapter o$ A.M.No. 0'8'02'S* a a-o%e'explained> alo, it &ay-e aid that there )a eneral ac?!iecence -ythe p!-lic ince the earch )arrant application)a re!larly endored to the ala o$ !deeralta -y the ($$ice o$ the *ler/ o$ *o!rt o$ theManila'R* !nder hi apparent a!thority a 2ndIice Exec!ti%e !de. +inally, !de eraltaact!al phyical poeion o$ the aid o$$ice ipre!&ed to -e in ood $aith, a the contrary)a not eta-lihed. Accordinly, !de eraltacan -e conidered to ha%e acted a a de +actoo$$icer )hen he i!ed the Search =arrant,

hence, treated a %alid a i$ it )a i!ed -y a

de 0ure o$$icer !$$erin no ad&initrati%ei&pedi&ent.

!+na vs. C'air"an8 CSCG.R. No. 191372, No%e&-er 2, 2014

Bersamin, J.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; CI)IL SER)ICECOMMISSION; (URISDICTION: +!na $iled theintant petition ?!etionin the deination o$!?!e a a &e&-er o$ the Foard o$ irector orr!tee o$ the GSS, B*, E** and BM+ $or-ein %iolati%e o$ Section 1 and 2 o$ Article O'Ao$ the 1987 *ontit!tion )hich prohi-it the*hair&en and Me&-er o$ the *ontit!tional*o&&iion $ro& holdin any other o$$ice ore&ploy&ent d!rin their ten!re. R!lin in $a%oro$ +!na the S* r!led that Section 14, *hapter ,itle 'A, Foo/ I o$ E( 292 i clear that the *S**hair&an &e&-erhip in a o%ernin -ody idependent on the condition that the $!nction o$the o%ern&ent entity )here he )ill it a itFoard &e&-er &!t a$$ect the careerde%elop&ent, e&ploy&ent tat!, riht,pri%ilee, and )el$are o$ o%ern&ent o$$icialand e&ployee. he concerned G(** are%eted -y their repecti%e charter )ith %ario!po)er and $!nction to carry o!t the p!rpoe$or )hich they )ere created. =hile po)er and$!nction aociated )ith appoint&ent,co&penation and -ene$it a$$ect the careerde%elop&ent, e&ploy&ent tat!, riht,pri%ilee, and )el$are o$ o%ern&ent o$$icialand e&ployee, the concerned G(** are alota/ed to per$or& other corporate po)er and

$!nction that are not peronnel'related. All o$thee po)er and $!nction, )hether peronnel'related or not, are carried o!t and exercied -ythe repecti%e Foard o$ the concerned G(**.Bence, )hen the *S* *hair&an it a a &e&-ero$ the o%ernin Foard o$ the concernedG(**, he &ay exercie thee po)er and$!nction, )hich are not any&ore deri%ed $ro&hi poition a *S* *hair&an. S!ch -ein thecae, the deination o$ !?!e )a!ncontit!tional.

E5*r&i-$ vs. COMELECG.R. No. 121%&3, 4o)ember 15, 1627

Peralta, J.

ELECTION LAW; REMEDIES AND (URISDICTIONIN ELECTION LAW: :A< co&plaint $ordi?!ali$ication $iled a$ter the election aaint acandidate "a# )ho ha not yet -een proclai&eda )inner, or "-# )ho ha already -eenproclai&ed a )inner. n -oth cae, theco&plaint hall -e di&ied a a di?!ali$icationcae -!t hall -e re$erred to the 5a)epart&ent o$ the *(ME5E* $or preli&inaryin%etiation. Bo)e%er, i$ -e$ore procla&ation,the 5a) epart&ent &a/e a pri&a $acie $indino$ !ilt and the correpondin in$or&ation ha

-een $iled )ith the appropriate trial co!rt, theco&plainant &ay $ile a petition $or !penion o$

13


14/172

the procla&ation o$ the repondent )ith theco!rt -e$ore )hich the cri&inal cae i pendinand the aid co!rt &ay order the !penion o$the procla&ation i$ the e%idence o$ !ilt itron.

$' vs. ar$nG.R. No. 21284, No%e&-er 2, 2014Car"io, J.

LEISLATI)E DEPARTMENT; POWER O!APPROPRIATION:o -e %alid, an appropriation&!t indicate a peci$ic a&o!nt and a peci$icp!rpoe. Bo)e%er, the p!rpoe &ay -e peci$ice%en i$ it i -ro/en do)n into di$$erent related!-'cateorie o$ the a&e nat!re. +or exa&ple,the p!rpoe can -e to Ccond!ct election,D)hich e%en i$ not exprely pelled o!t co%erre!lar, pecial, or recall election. he p!rpoeo$ the appropriation i till peci$ic to $!nd

election, )hich nat!rally and loically incl!de,e%en i$ not exprely tated, not only re!lar -!talo pecial or recall election.

*r"an$ Oi, vs. T$,, R*%+,a-$r $ardG.R. No. 137290, No%e&-er 23, 2014

Bersamin, J.

ENERAL CONSIDERATIONS; IMMUNIT !ROMSUIT: An !nincorporated o%ern&ent aency)itho!t any eparate 6!ridical peronality o$ ito)n en6oy i&&!nity $ro& !it -eca!e it iin%eted )ith an inherent po)er o$ o%ereinty.Accordinly, a clai& $or da&ae aaint the

aency cannot proper> other)ie, the doctrineo$ o%erein i&&!nity i %iolated. he i&&!nityha -een !pheld in $a%or o$ the $or&er -eca!eit $!nction i o%ern&ental or incidental to !ch$!nction> it ha not -een !pheld in $a%or o$ thelatter )hoe $!nction )a not in p!r!it o$ aneceary $!nction o$ o%ern&ent -!t )aeentially a -!ine. he RF, !&lao and the=B correctly in%o/ed the doctrine o$o%erein i&&!nity in their $a%or. he RF andthe =B per$or&ed p!rely or eentiallyo%ern&ent or p!-lic $!nction. A !ch, they)ere in%eted )ith the inherent po)er o$o%ereinty. Fein !nincorporated aencie or

entitie o$ the National Go%ern&ent, they co!ldnot -e !ed a !ch. (n hi part, !&lao )aactin a the aent o$ the RF in repect o$ the&atter concerned. Nonethele, the Ber&ano(il properly ar!ed that the N**, -ein apri%ate -!ine entity, )a not i&&!ne $ro&!it. he N** )a incorporated in 1933 !nderit oriinal na&e o$ *ontr!ction e%elop&ent*orporation o$ the hilippine "**# $or a ter&o$ $i$ty year p!r!ant to the *orporation *ode.Bence, the Go%ern&ent o)ned 90. o$ thee?!ity o$ the N**, and only 9.70 o$ theN** %otin e?!ity re&ained !nder pri%ateo)nerhip. Altho!h the &a6ority or controllinhare o$ the N** -eloned to the Go%ern&ent,the N** )a eentially a pri%ate corporation

d!e to it ha%in -een created in accordance)ith the *orporation *ode, the eneralcorporation tat!te. More peci$ically, the N**)a an ac?!ired aet corporation !nderAd&initrati%e (rder No. 9, and )a !-6ect tothe re!lation and 6!ridiction o$ the Sec!ritieand Exchane *o&&iion. *one?!ently, thedoctrine o$ o%erein i&&!nity had noapplication to the N**.

DECEMER 2014

CDS vs. COA C'airp*rs$n P+,id$?TanG.R. No. 209219, ece&-er 2, 2014

Rees, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; !INDINS O!ADMINISTRATI)E ODIES ACCORDED RESPECTAND !INALIT: +indin o$ ad&initrati%eaencie are accorded not only repect -!t alo

$inality )hen the deciion and order are nottainted )ith !n$airne or ar-itrarine that)o!ld a&o!nt to ra%e a-!e o$ dicretion. t ionly )hen the *(A ha acted )itho!t or inexce o$ 6!ridiction, or )ith ra%e a-!e o$dicretion a&o!ntin to lac/ or exce o$6!ridiction, that thi *o!rt entertain a petition?!etionin it r!lin.

C*ra/i&a vs. COMELECG.R. No. 2013, ece&-er 2, 2014

Perez, J.

ELECTION LAW; CANDIDAC: :he< d!ty o$ the

*(ME5E* to i%e d!e co!re to *(* $iled in d!e$or& i &initerial in character, and that )hilethe *o&elec &ay loo/ into patent de$ect in the*(*, it &ay not o into &atter not appearinon their $ace. he ?!etion o$ elii-ility orinelii-ility o$ a candidate i th! -eyond the!!al and proper coni@ance o$ the *(ME5E*.

PACOR vs. D* +"anG.R. No. 208931, ece&-er 8, 2014

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; POWERS O!ADMINISTRATI)E AENCIES: An e&ployeeappointed -y AG*(R &ay only -e di&ied -yAG*(R thro!h it Foard o$ irector a onlythe proper diciplinary a!thority &ay di&i ane&ployee $ro& er%ice. =hen the di&ial iordered -y another peron other than AG*(R,it hall contit!te depri%ation o$ d!e proce onthe part o$ the e&ployee.

)i,,a/+*r-* vs. R$#r*d$G.R. No. 1990, ece&-er 10, 2014

Rees, J.

(UDICIAL DEPARTMENT; (UDICIAL RE)IEW: he

exitence o$ an act!al contro%ery in the intantcae cannot -e o%ere&phai@ed. At the ti&e o$

14


15/172

$ilin o$ the intant petition, Ro-redo hadalready i&ple&ented the aailed M*. n $act,Iilla$!erte recei%ed A!dit (-er%ationMe&orand!& "A(M# No. 2011'009 dated May 10,2011 $ro& the ($$ice o$ the ro%incial A!ditor o$*a&arine S!r, re?!irin hi& to co&&ent on theo-er%ation o$ the a!dit tea& :;< he i!ance

o$ A(M No. 2011'009 to Iilla$!erte i a clearindication that the aailed i!ance o$ Ro-redoare already in the $!ll co!re o$ i&ple&entation.he A(M peci$ically &entioned o$ Iilla$!ertealleed non'co&pliance :;< and :t


16/172

(ANUAR 2016

in,+ i&$, Minin% C$rp.8 vs. Trans?Asia Oi,

and En*r% D*vB- C$rp.G.R. No. 207942, an!ary 12, 201

Bersamin, J.

NATIONAL ECONOM AND PATRIMON;E9PLORATION8 DE)ELOPMENT8 ANDUTILIATION O! NATURAL RESOURCES: Rihtpertainin to &inin patent i!ed p!r!ant tothe hilippine Fill o$ 1902 and exitin prior toNo%e&-er 1, 19 are %eted riht that cannot-e i&paired. Minin riht ac?!ired !nder thehilippine Fill o$ 1902 and prior to thee$$ecti%ity o$ the 19 *ontit!tion )ere %etedriht that co!ld not -e i&paired e%en -y theGo%ern&ent. ndeed, the &inin patent o$ Tinl!)ere i!ed p!r!ant to the hilippine Fill o$1902 and )ere !-itin prior to the e$$ecti%ityo$ the 19 *ontit!tion. *one?!ently, Tinl!and it predeceor'in'interet had ac?!ired%eted riht in the dip!ted &ineral land thatco!ld not and ho!ld not -e i&paired e%en inliht o$ their pat $ail!re to co&ply )ith there?!ire&ent o$ reitration and ann!al )or/o-liation.

T'* La@ !ir" $/ La%+*s"a8 Ma%sa,in8

C$ns+,-a8 and as-ard$ vs. COAG.R. No. 1844, an!ary 1, 201

Leonen, J.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; TECOMMISSION ON AUDIT; POWERS:o $ill the apcreated -y the a&end&ent o$ *(A *irc!lar No.83'2, repondent correctly held that theo$$icial o$ ** )ho %iolated the pro%iion o$*irc!lar No. 98'002 and *irc!lar No. 9 ho!ld -eperonally lia-le to pay the leal $ee o$5a!e&a, a pre%io!ly pro%ided $or in *irc!larNo. 83'2. hi $ind !pport in Sec. 10 o$ theGo%ern&ent A!ditin *ode o$ the hilippine,)hich tate that Cexpendit!re o$ o%ern&ent$!nd or !e o$ o%ern&ent property in%iolation o$ la) or re!lation hall -e a

peronal lia-ility o$ the o$$icial or e&ployee$o!nd to -e directly reponi-le there$oreD. hi*o!rt ha alo pre%io!ly held in umaru )s.8uirino State Colle*e that Cthe $ee o$ thela)yer )ho rendered leal er%ice to theo%ern&ent in lie! o$ the (SG or the (G** ithe peronal lia-ility o$ the o%ern&ent o$$icial)ho hired hi er%ice )itho!t the prior )rittencon$or&ity o$ the (SG or the (G**, a the cae&ay -e.D

Mari-i"* Ind+s-r A+-'$ri- vs. COAG.R. No. 18812, an!ary 1, 201

Leonen, J.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; TE CI)ILSER)ICE COMMISSION; ADDITIONAL8 DOULE8OR INDIRECT COMPENSATION: o pro%e the%alidity o$ the allo)ance ranted, MApreented a photocopy o$ the &e&orand!& )ithan Cappro%edD ta&ped on the &e&orand!&.Felo) the ta&p i the inat!re o$ then'reident Etrada. he *o!rt cannot r!le on the%alidity o$ the alleed appro%al -y the thenreident Etrada o$ the rant o$ additionalallo)ance and -ene$it. MA $ailed to pro%e itexitence. he alleed appro%al o$ the reident)a contained in a &ere photocopy o$ the&e&orand!&; he oriinal )a not preentedd!rin the proceedin. A copy o$ the doc!&enti not in the MalacaKan Record ($$ice. +!rther,Cthe rant o$ allo)ance and -ene$it a&o!ntto do!-le co&penation procri-ed -y Art. O"F#,Sec. 8 o$ the 1987 *ontit!tion.D

Ris$s?)ida, vs. COMELECG.R. No. 203333, an!ary 21, 201


E9ECUTI)E DEPARTMENT; POWERS; PARDONINPOWER:=hen the pardon extended to $or&erreident Etrada ho) that -oth the principalpenalty o$ reclusion "er"etuaand it acceorypenaltie are incl!ded in the pardon. he $irtentence re$er to the exec!ti%e cle&encyextended to $or&er reident Etrada )ho )acon%icted -y the Sandian-ayan o$ pl!nder andi&poed a penalty o$ reclusion "er"etua. helatter i the principal penalty pardoned )hichrelie%ed hi& o$ i&prion&ent. he entence that$ollo)ed, )hich tate that C"h#e i here-yretored to hi ci%il and political riht,Dexprely re&itted the acceory penaltie thatattached to the principal penalty o$ reclusion

"er"etua. Bence, $ro& the text o$ the pardonthat the acceory penaltie o$ ci%il interdictionand perpet!al a-ol!te di?!ali$ication )ereexprely re&itted toether )ith the principalpenalty o$ reclusion "er"etua. +!rther&ore, thethird prea&-!lar cla!e o$ the pardon, i.e.,C:)


17/172

In R*: S+pr*"* C$+r- (+di&ia,

Ind*p*nd*n&* and !is&a, A+-$n$"

M$v*"*n-'114, an!ary 21, 201

Leonen, J.

(UDICIAL DEPARTMENT; (UDICIAL RE)IEW:here can -e no 6!ticia-le contro%ery in%ol%inthe contit!tionality o$ a propoed -ill. he*o!rt can exercie it po)er o$ 6!dicial re%ie)only a$ter a la) i enacted, not -e$ore. Mi6are)ant the co!rt to tri/e do)n the propoed-ill a-olihin the !diciary e%elop&ent +!nd.he co!rt, ho)e%er, &!t act only )ithin itpo)er ranted !nder the *ontit!tion. heco!rt i not e&po)ered to re%ie) propoed -ill-eca!e a -ill i not a la).

Di$&*s* $/ a&$,$d vs. COMELECG.R. No. 20728, an!ary 21, 201

Leonen, J.

(UDICIAL DEPARTMENT; (UDICIAL RE)IEW;POLITICAL UESTION DOCTRINE: =henpetitioner, a iocee and it Fihop potedtarpa!lin in $ront o$ the cathedral )hich ai&edto di!ade %oter $ro& electin candidate )ho!pported the RB 5a), and the *(ME5E* t)iceordered the latter to di&antle the tarpa!lin $or%iolation o$ it re!lation )hich i&poed a i@eli&it on ca&pain &aterial, the cae i a-o!t*(ME5E* -reach o$ the petitioner$!nda&ental riht o$ expreion o$ &atterrelatin to election. he concept o$ a political

?!etion ne%er precl!de 6!dicial re%ie) )henthe act o$ a contit!tional oran in$rine !pon a$!nda&ental indi%id!al or collecti%e riht.

ILL O! RITS; !REEDOM O! E9PRESSION:=hen petitioner, a iocee and it Fihoppoted tarpa!lin in $ront o$ the cathedral )hichai&ed to di!ade %oter $ro& electincandidate )ho !pported the RB 5a), and the*(ME5E* t)ice ordered the latter to di&antlethe tarpa!lin $or %iolation o$ it re!lation )hichi&poed a i@e li&it on ca&pain &aterial, thecae i a-o!t *(ME5E* -reach o$ thepetitioner $!nda&ental riht o$ expreion o$

&atter relatin to election. h!, the *(ME5E*had no leal -ai to i!e aid order a thetarpa!lin )ere not paid $or -y any candidate orpolitical party and the candidate therein )erenot con!lted reardin it potin. t )a parto$ the petitioner ad%ocacy aaint the RB 5a).!ripr!dence )hich et the li&it to $reepeech o$ candidate d!rin election -!t do notli&it the riht o$ -roadcater to co&&ent onthe candidate do not apply to the petitioner,a the petitioner are pri%ate indi%id!al )hoha%e lot their riht to i%e co&&entary on thecandidate )hen the *(ME5E* ordered thetarpa!lin re&o%ed. Second, the tarpa!lin i

protected peech. he i@e o$ the tarpa!lin i$!nda&entally part o$ protected peech, a it i

i&portant to con%ey the ad%ocacy o$ thepetitioner, )ho are alo part o$ the electorate.More i&portantly, e%ery citi@en expreion )ithpolitical cone?!ence en6oy a hih deree o$protection. =hile the tarpa!lin &ay in$l!encethe !cce or $ail!re o$ the na&ed candidateand political partie, thi doe not necearily

&ean it i election propaanda. he tarpa!lin)a not paid $or or poted Cin ret!rn $orconiderationD -y any candidate, political partyor party' lit ro!p. he *(ME5E*, there$ore,ha no 6!ridiction to i!e it order a it lac/the re?!iite o$ a %alid content'-aedre!lation o$ peech. hird, the tarpa!lin andtheir &eae are not reliio! peech, a theydo not con%ey any reliio! doctrine o$ the*atholic *h!rch. =ith all d!e repect to the*atholic $aith$!l, :;< ch!rch doctrine :;< arenot -indin !pon thi co!rt. he poition o$ the*atholic reliion in the hilippine a reard theRB 5a) doe not !$$ice to ?!ali$y the potin -y

one o$ it &e&-er o$ a tarpa!lin a reliio!peech olely on !ch -ai. he en!&eration o$candidate on the $ace o$ the tarpa!linprecl!de any do!-t a to it nat!re a peech)ith political cone?!ence and not reliio!peech.

P*$p,* vs. Li+G.R. No. 189272, an!ary 21, 201

Peralta, J.

ILL O! RITS; SEARCES AND SEIURES: Apeace o$$icer o$ a pri%ate peron &ay, )itho!t a)arrant, arret a peron, )hen, in hi preence,

the peron to -e arreted ha co&&itted, iact!ally co&&ittin, or i atte&ptin to co&&itan o$$ene. )o "2# ele&ent &!t -e preent"1# the peron to -e arreted &!t exec!te ano%ert act indicatin that he ha 6!t co&&itted,i act!ally co&&ittin, or i atte&ptin toco&&it a cri&e> and "2# !ch o%ert act i donein the preence or )ithin the %ie) o$ thearretin o$$icer.

O"#+ds"an vs. D* $saG.R. No. 204, an!ary 21, 201

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS: Section 27 o$ the(&-!d&an Act pro%ide that $indin o$ $act -ythe ($$ice o$ the (&-!d&an )hen !pported-y !-tantial e%idence are concl!i%e.(ther)ie, they hall not -e -indin !pon theco!rt. h!, the *o!rt &!t &a/e it o)n$act!al re%ie) o$ the cae )hen the(&-!d&an $indin are contradictory to thato$ the *o!rt o$ the Appeal. A &icond!ct that)arrant di&ial $ro& er%ice &!t -e ra%e,erio!, i&portant, )eihty, &o&ento!, andnot tri$lin. t &!t i&ply )ron$!l intention andnot a &ere error o$ 6!d&ent and &!t alo

ha%e a direct relation to and -e connected )iththe per$or&ance o$ the p!-lic o$$icer o$$icial

17


18/172

d!tie a&o!ntin either to &alad&initration or)ill$!l, intentional nelect, or $ail!re todichare the d!tie o$ the o$$ice. h!, theele&ent o$ corr!ption, clear intent to %iolatethe la), or $larant direard o$ eta-lihedr!le, &!t -e clearly &ani$eted.

Sa#i5$n vs. D* (+anA.M. No. '14'281, an!ary 28, 201

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; DE FACTOO!!ICERS:=hile C+irt ($$eneD and C5enth o$Ser%iceD &ay indeed -e conidered a &itiatincirc!&tance, the preence thereo$ doe nota!to&atically re!lt in the do)nradin o$ thepenalty to -e i&poed !pon repondent,epecially in %ie) o$ the exitence o$ anara%atin circ!&tance. n thi cae, incethere i one "1# ara%atin circ!&tance "i.e.

Si&ple Nelect o$ !ty# and t)o "2# &itiatincirc!&tance "i.e. +irt ($$ene and 5enth o$Ser%ice#, only the &ini&!& o$ the i&poa-lepenalty $or Gra%e A-!e o$ A!thority "or(ppreion# ho!ld -e &eted aaintrepondent.

!ERUAR 2016

D* Cas-r$ vs. P*$p,*G.R. No. 171372, +e-r!ary 2, 201

Bersamin, J.

ILL O! RITS; SEL!?INCRIMINATION CLAUSE:

he riht to re&ain ilent and to co!nel can -ein%o/ed only in the context in )hich the Mirandadoctrine applie )hen the o$$icial proceedin icond!cted !nder the coerci%e at&ophere o$ ac!todial interroation. here are no caeextendin the& to a non'coerci%e ettin. heriht are in%oca-le only )hen the acc!ed i!nder c!todial in%etiation. A peron!nderoin a nor&al a!dit exa&ination i not!nder c!todial in%etiation and, hence, thea!dit exa&iner &ay not -e conidered the la)en$orce&ent o$$icer conte&plated -y the r!le.Fy a $air analoy, Marieta &ay not -e aid to -e!nder c!todial in%etiation. She )a not e%en

-ein in%etiated -y any police or la)en$orce&ent o$$icer. She )a !nderad&initrati%e in%etiation -y her !perior in apri%ate $ir& and in p!rely %ol!ntary &anner. She)a not retrained o$ her $reedo& in any&anner. She )a $ree to tay or o. here )ano e%idence that he )a $orced or pre!red toay anythin.

CSC vs. )*r%*, D* Di$sG.R. No. 203, +e-r!ary 4, 201

Villarama, Jr., J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!

PULIC O!!ICERS:he *o!rt re%ere the r!lino$ the *A that the dicrepancie in Maria

inat!re and pict!re on the peronal dataheet and pict!re eat plan can -e the re!lt o$a i&ple &ix'!p. hi r!lin i p!re pec!lationand i -elied -y the e%idence on record. =rittenon the pict!re eat plan i the na&e o$repondent in -old letter. (n top o$ it i herp!rported inat!re. Nota-ly, repondent aidthat he )a the one )ho too/ the exa&ination.$ the *o!rt -elie%e her, then he )a the one)ho )rote her na&e in -old letter and p!t theinat!re on top o$ it. h!, there )a no &ix !pin her inat!re on the pict!re eat plan. ponco&parion o$ repondent inat!re, the *S*$o!nd that repondent inat!re on the pict!reeat plan i di$$erent $ro& her inat!re on herperonal data heet. =e alo exa&inedrepondent inat!re on the pict!re eat planand peronal data heet and )e aree )ith the*S* that the inat!re are di$$erent. =e aloaree )ith the *S* that the pict!re o$repondent on the pict!re eat plan and

peronal data heet are di$$erent. Repondentco&&itted erio! dihonety )hen he declaredin her peronal data heet that he too/ andpaed the ci%il er%ice exa&ination onNo%e&-er 17, 2000. he e%idence at hand alodipro%ed her teti&ony that he herel$ too/the exa&ination. n Ad)incula ). Dicen, )ere$erred to the peronal data heet a therepoitory o$ all rele%ant in$or&ation a-o!t anyo%ern&ent e&ployee or o$$icial. h!, )edeclared that conceal&ent o$ any in$or&ationtherein )arrant the i&poition o$ad&initrati%e penalty. Speci$ically, in Deuzman ). Delos Santos, )e r!led that the

&a/in o$ an !ntr!th$!l tate&ent in theperonal data heet a&o!nt to dihonety and$ali$ication o$ o$$icial doc!&ent, )hich )arrantdi&ial $ro& er%ice !pon co&&iion o$ the$irt o$$ene.

TESDA vs. COAG.R. No. 193418, +e-r!ary 10, 201

Bersamin, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW8 POWERS O!ADMINISTRATI)E AENCIES: he petitionercontend that *(A ra%ely a-!ed it dicretion)hen it ordered the diallo)ance o$ the releae

o$ health -ene$it to it e&ployee. heS!pre&e *o!rt r!led that the &ere appro%al -y*onre o$ the GAA doe not intantly &a/e the$!nd a%aila-le $or pendin -y the Exec!ti%eepart&ent. he $!nd a!thori@ed $ordi-!re&ent !nder the GAA are !!ally till to-e collected d!rin the $ical year. he re%en!ecollection o$ the Go%ern&ent, &ainly $ro&taxe, &ay $all hort o$ the appro%ed -!det, aha -een the nor&al occ!rrence al&ot e%eryyear. Bence, it i i&portant that the releae o$$!nd -e d!ly a!thori@ed, identi$ied, oranctioned to a%ert p!ttin the leiti&ateprora&, pro6ect, and acti%itie o$ the

Go%ern&ent in $ical 6eopardy.

18


19/172

In r*: A,&an-araA.M. No. '1'293, +e-r!ary 17, 201

Per Curiam

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS: Gra%e &icond!ct i

co&&itted )hen there ha -een Catranreion o$ o&e eta-lihed and de$initer!le o$ action, &ore partic!larly, !nla)$!l-eha%ior or ro nelience -y a p!-lic o$$icer.he &icond!ct i ra%e i$ it in%ol%e any o$ theadditional ele&ent o$ corr!ption, )ill$!l intentto %iolate the la), or to direard eta-lihedr!le, all o$ )hich &!t -e eta-lihed -y!-tantial e%idence, and &!t necearily -e&ani$et in a chare o$ ra%e &icond!ct.D nthi cae, Alcantara and acinto ad&itted tota/in and encahin chec/ o$ their co')or/er)itho!t per&iion. here i no do!-t that theiract o$ repeatedly tealin the chec/ and$orin the inat!re o$ their co')or/ercontit!te ra%e &icond!ct and dihonety.

$n-iv*r$s?ara


20/172

Enineer )a !pended -y the (&-!d&an, the*o!rt o$ Appeal, cannot re%ere the !penion-y holdin that the (&-!d&an po)er ili&ited only to reco&&end penaltie. naddition, it ha -een ettled that the(&-!d&an ha the leal interet to inter%enein the proceedin in the *A to de$end itdeciion.

MARC 2016

Na&i$n vs. COAG.R No. 20477, March 17, 201

Rees, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; ADMINISTRATI)E DUEPROCESS: n ad&initrati%e proceedin, theeence o$ d!e proce i the opport!nity toexplain one ide or ee/ a reconideration o$the action or r!lin co&plained o$, and to

!-&it any e%idence he &ay ha%e in !pport o$hi de$ene. he de&and o$ d!e proce are!$$iciently &et )hen the partie are i%en theopport!nity to -e heard -e$ore 6!d&ent irendered.

In r*: Parr*n$(*A No. 14'220'*A', March 17, 201

Bersamin, J.

LAW ON PULIC O!!ICERS; LIAILITIES O!PULIC O!!ICERS: Altho!h o$ten holdin that ahea%y caeload i in!$$icient reaon to exc!e a!de $ro& dipoin hi cae )ithin the

rele&entary period, the a-ence o$ &alice ordeli-erate atte&pt to i&pede the dipenationo$ 6!tice can exc!lpate hi& $ro& lia-ility.

R*p+#,i& vs. +an% T* !+G.R. No. 20098, March 18, 201

Del Castillo, J.

CITIENSIP; NATURALIATION ANDDENATURALIATION: Section 2 o$ the Re%iedNat!rali@ation 5a) or *A 47 re?!ire, a&onother, that an applicant $or nat!rali@ation &!t-e o$ ood &oral character and &!t ha%e o&e/no)n l!crati%e trade, pro$eion, or la)$!locc!pation. he ?!ali$ication o$ Co&e /no)nl!crati%e trade, pro$eion, or la)$!locc!pationD &ean Cnot only that the peronha%in the e&ploy&ent et eno!h $or hiordinary neceitie in li$e. t &!t -e ho)nthat the e&ploy&ent i%e one an inco&e !chthat there i an apprecia-le &arin o$ hiinco&e o%er hi expene a to -e a-le topro%ide $or an ade?!ate !pport in the e%ent o$!ne&ploy&ent, ic/ne, or dia-ility to )or/and th! a%oid one -eco&in the o-6ect o$charity or a p!-lic chare.D Bi inco&e ho!ldper&it Chi& and the &e&-er o$ hi $a&ily toli%e )ith reaona-le co&$ort, in accordance )ith

the pre%ailin tandard o$ li%in, and

conitently )ith the de&and o$ h!&an dinity,at thi tae o$ o!r ci%[email protected]

David vs. A%#aG.R. No. 19911, March 18, 201

Villarama, Jr., J.

CITIENSIP; LOSS AND REACUISITION O!PILIPPINE CITIENSIP:a%id ar!ed that the*o!rt ha direarded the !ndip!ted $act thathe i a nat!ral'-orn +ilipino citi@en, and that -yre'ac?!irin the a&e tat! !nder R.A. No.922 he )a -y leal $iction Cdee&ed not toha%e lotD it at the ti&e o$ hi nat!rali@ation in*anada and thro!h the ti&e )hen he )a aidto ha%e $alely clai&ed hilippine citi@enhip inhi Micellaneo! 5eae Application. Bo)e%er,)hile Section 2 declare the eneral policy that+ilipino )ho ha%e -eco&e citi@en o$ anotherco!ntry hall -e dee&ed Cnot to ha%e lot their

hilippine citi@enhip,D !ch i ?!ali$ied -y thephrae C!nder the condition o$ thi Act.D tpro%ide that thoe nat!ral'-orn +ilipino )hoha%e lot their citi@enhip -y nat!rali@ation in a$orein co!ntry hall re'ac?!ire their hilippineciti@enhip !pon ta/in the oath o$ alleiance tothe Rep!-lic o$ the hilippine.

A#ad vs. D*,a Cr+G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 201

Leonen, J.

ADMINISTRATI)E LAW; ENERAL PRINCIPLES:he next'in'ran/ r!le i a r!le o$ pre$erence on

)ho to conider $or pro&otion. he r!le doenot i%e e&ployee next in ran/ a %eted riht tothe poition next hiher to their ho!ld thatpoition -eco&e %acant. Appoint&ent i adicretionary po)er o$ the appointin a!thority,o lon a the appointee poee the?!ali$ication re?!ired -y la), the appoint&enti %alid.

DO vs. P'i,ip M$rris P'i,ippin*sG.R. No. 20294, March 2, 201

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

ENERAL CONSIDERATIONS; INERENT POWERS

O! TE STATE; POLICE POWER:he *o!rt $indthat there i no !-tantial di$$erence -et)eenthe acti%itie that )o!ld $all !nder the p!r%ie)o$ Cale pro&otionD in RA 794 "C*on!&er Acto$ the hilippineD#, a )ell a thoe !nderCpro&otionD in RA 9211 "Co-acco Re!lationAct o$ 200D#, a )o!ld )arrant a delineation inthe a!thority to re!late it cond!ct. n line)ith thi, i$ the A* 'o-acco )a created andexprely i%en the excl!i%e a!thority toi&ple&ent the pro%iion o$ RA 9211, it ini$iethat it hall alo ta/e chare o$ the re!lation o$the !e, ale, ditri-!tion, and ad%ertie&ento$ to-acco prod!ct, a )ell a all $or& o$

Cpro&otionD )hich eentially incl!de Calepro&otion.D Bence, the *o!rt $ind that RA 9211

20


21/172

i&pliedly repealed the rele%ant pro%iion o$ RA794 )ith repect to the a!thority o$ the (B tore!late to-acco ale pro&otion. here$ore,)ith thi re!latory po)er con$erred !pon theA*'o-acco -y RA 9211, the (B and the F+Aha%e -een e$$ecti%ely and i&pliedly di%eted o$any a!thority to act !pon application $or

to-acco ale pro&otional per&it, incl!dinMM.

21


22/172

LAOR LAW

APRIL 2014

Univ*rsidad d* S-a. Isa#*, vs. Sa"#a5$nG.R. No. 193280 L 193283, April 2, 2014

Villarama, Jr., J.

LAOR STANDARDS; =INDS O! EMPLOMENT;PROATIONAR EMPLOMENT: A pro-ationarye&ployee i one )ho i on trial -y the e&ployerd!rin )hich the e&ployer deter&ine )hetheror not aid e&ployee i ?!ali$ied $or per&anente&ploy&ent. t i )ell ettled that the e&ployerha the riht or i at li-erty to chooe )ho )ill-e hired and )ho )ill -e denied e&ploy&ent. nthat ene, it i )ithin the exercie o$ the riht

to elect hi e&ployee that the e&ployer &ayet or $ix a pro-ationary period )ithin )hich thelatter &ay tet and o-er%e the cond!ct o$ the$or&er -e$ore hirin hi& per&anently. =hilethere i no tat!tory cap on the &ini&!& ter&o$ pro-ation, the la) et a &axi&!& CtrialperiodD d!rin )hich the e&ployer &ay tet the$itne and e$$iciency o$ the e&ployee.

T*naas vs. R. )i,,*%as Tai Transp$r-G.R. No. 192998, April 2, 2014

Rees, J.

LAOR STANDARDS; EMPLOER?EMPLOEERELATIONSIP::


23/172

5o o$ tr!t and con$idence, to -e a %alid ca!e$or di&ial, &!t -e )or/'related !ch a)o!ld ho) the e&ployee concerned to -e !n$itto contin!e )or/in $or the e&ployer and it&!t -e -aed on a )ill$!l -reach o$ tr!t and$o!nded on clearly eta-lihed $act. S!ch-reach i )ill$!l i$ it i done intentionally,

/no)inly, and p!rpoely, )itho!t 6!ti$ia-leexc!e a ditin!ihed $ro& an act donecarelely, tho!htlely, heedlely orinad%ertently.

SPI T*&'n$,$%i*s vs. Map+aG.R. No. 19114, April 7, 2014

Rees, J.

LAOR STANDARDS; DISMISSAL !ROMEMPLOMENT; AUTORIED CAUSES:he *o!rtdoe not aree )ith the rationali@ation o$ theN5R* that i$ it )ere tr!e that her poition )anot red!ndant and indipena-le, then theco&pany &!t ha%e already hired a ne) one toreplace her in order not to 6eopardi@e it-!ine operation. he $act that there i noneonly pro%e that her poition )a not necearyand there$ore !per$l!o!. =hat the a-o%ereaonin o$ the N5R* $ailed to percei%e i thato$ pri&ordial conideration i not theno&enclat!re or title i%en to the e&ployee,-!t the nat!re o$ hi $!nction. t i not the 6o-title -!t the act!al )or/ that the e&ployeeper$or&. Alo, chane in the 6o- title i notynony&o! to a chane in the $!nction. Apoition cannot -e a-olihed -y a &ere chaneo$ 6o- title. n cae o$ red!ndancy, the

&anae&ent ho!ld add!ce e%idence and pro%ethat a poition )hich )a created in place o$ apre%io! one ho!ld pertain to $!nction )hichare dii&ilar and inconr!o! to the a-olihedo$$ice. +or a %alid i&ple&entation o$ ared!ndancy prora&, the e&ployer &!t co&ply)ith the $ollo)in re?!iite "1# )ritten noticeer%ed on -oth the e&ployee and the (5E atleat one &onth prior to the intended date o$ter&inationP "2# pay&ent o$ eparation paye?!i%alent to at leat one &onth pay or at leatone &onth pay $or e%ery year o$ er%ice,)hiche%er i hiherP "# ood $aith in a-olihinthe red!ndant poition> and,"4# $air and

reaona-le criteria in acertainin )hatpoition are to -e declared red!ndant.

W*np'i, C$rp.8 vs. A#in%G.R. No. 20798, April 7, 2014

Brion, J.

LAOR STANDARDS; DISMISSAL !ROMEMPLOMENT; RELIE! !OR ILLEAL DISMISSAL:Since the deciion i i&&ediately exec!tory, it ithe d!ty o$ the e&ployer to co&ply )ith theorder o$ reintate&ent, )hich can -e doneeither act!ally or thro!h payroll reintate&ent.A pro%ided !nder Article 22 o$ the 5a-or *ode,

thi i&&ediately exec!tory nat!re o$ an order o$reintate&ent i not a$$ected -y the exitence

o$ an onoin appeal. he e&ployer ha the d!tyto reintate the e&ployee in the interi& period!ntil a re%eral i decreed -y a hiher co!rt ortri-!nal. :he *o!rt point< o!t thatreintate&ent and -ac/)ae are t)o eparaterelie$ a%aila-le to an illeally di&iede&ployee. he nor&al cone?!ence o$ a $indin

that an e&ployee ha -een illeally di&iedare $irt, that the e&ployee -eco&e entitledto reintate&ent to hi $or&er poition )itho!tlo o$ eniority riht> and econd, the pay&ento$ -ac/)ae co%er the period r!nnin $ro& hiilleal di&ial !p to hi act!al reintate&ent.hee t)o relie$ are not inconitent )ith oneanother and the la-or ar-iter can a)ard -othi&!ltaneo!ly. :;< n the intant cae, the ranto$ eparation pay )a a !-tit!te $or i&&ediateand contin!ed re'e&ploy&ent )ith the pri%aterepondent Fan/. he rant o$ eparation paydid not redre the in6!ry that i intended to -erelie%ed -y the econd re&edy o$ -ac/)ae,

that i, the lo o$ earnin that )o!ld ha%eaccr!ed to the di&ied e&ployee d!rin theperiod -et)een di&ial and reintate&ent. !ta little di$$erently, pay&ent o$ -ac/)ae i a$or& o$ relie$ that retore the inco&e that )alot -y reaon o$ !nla)$!l di&ial> eparationpay, in contrat, i oriented to)ard thei&&ediate $!t!re, the tranitional period thedi&ied e&ployee &!t !ndero -e$orelocatin a replace&ent 6o-.

Ma%sasa Mari-i"* vs. C'inG.R. No. 199022, April 7, 2014

Abad, J.

LAOR STANDARDS; DISAILIT ENE!ITS:e$initely, the 5a-or Ar-iter a)ard o$ lo o$earnin i !n)arranted ince *hin had already-een i%en dia-ility co&penation $or lo o$earnin capacity. An additional a)ard $or lo o$earnin )ill re!lt in do!-le reco%ery. n acatena o$ cae, the *o!rt ha conitently r!ledthat dia-ility ho!ld not -e !ndertood &ore onit &edical ini$icance -!t on the lo o$earnin capacity. er&anent total dia-ility&ean dia-le&ent o$ an e&ployee to earn)ae in the a&e /ind o$ )or/, or )or/ o$i&ilar nat!re that he )a trained $or or

acc!to&ed to per$or&, or any /ind o$ )or/)hich a peron o$ hi &entality and attain&entco!ld do. ia-ility, there$ore, i notynony&o! )ith Cic/neD or Cillne.D =hat ico&penated i one incapacity to )or/re!ltin in the i&pair&ent o$ hi earnincapacity.

Land an3 vs. Nava,G.R. No. 19387, April 7, 2014

Velasco, J.

SOCIAL WEL!ARE LEISLATION; SSS LAW: nreol%in the i!e o$ )hether the *(5A andJor

the FE ho!ld -e paid eparately $ro& the -aicalary to the e&ployee o$ 5F a o$ !ly 1,

23


24/172

1989, :the *o!rt< ho!ld loo/ into the %erypro%iion o$ the SS5. +ro& the $oreoinpro%iion, it i i&&ediately apparent that theSS5 &andate the interation o$ all allo)anceexcept $or the $ollo)in

1. Repreentation and tranportationallo)ance>

2. *lothin and la!ndry allo)ance>. S!-itence allo)ance o$ &arine

o$$icer and cre) on -oardo%ern&ent %eel>

4. S!-itence allo)ance o$ hopitalperonnel>

. Ba@ard pay>3. Allo)ance o$ $orein er%ice

peronnel tationed a-road>7. And !ch other additional

co&penation not other)ie peci$iedherein a &ay -e deter&ined -y theFM.

Since the *(5A and the FE are a&on thoeexprely excl!ded -y the SS5 $ro& interation,they ho!ld -e conidered a dee&ed interatedin the tandardi@ed alarie o$ 5F e&ployee!nder the eneral r!le o$ interation. h!,there no other concl!ion than to deny thepay&ent o$ the *(5A on top o$ the 5Fe&ployee -aic alary $ro& !ly 1, 1989-eca!e "1# it ha not -een exprely excl!ded$ro& the eneral r!le on interation -y the $irtentence o$ Sec. 12 o$ the SS5 and "2# aexplained, the *(5A i not ranted in order torei&-!re e&ployee $or the expene inc!rred

in the per$or&ance o$ their o$$icial d!tie.

Ta#an%a$ S'*,, R*/in*r E"p,$**s

Ass$&ia-i$n vs. Pi,ipinas S'*,,G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014


LAOR RELATIONS; UN!AIR LAOR PRACTICE:A there )a no -ad $aith on the part o$ Shell init -arainin )ith the !nion, deadloc/ )apoi-le and did occ!r. h!, -eca!e o$ the!nreol%ed i!e on )ae increae, there )aact!ally a co&plete toppae o$ the onoin

neotiation -et)een the partie and the !nion$iled a Notice o$ Stri/e. A &!t!al declaration)o!ld neither add to nor !-tract $ro& thereality o$ the deadloc/ then exitin -et)eenthe partie. h!, the a-ence o$ the partie&!t!al declaration o$ deadloc/ doe not &eanthat there )a no deadloc/. At &ot, it )o!ldha%e -een i&ply a reconition o$ the pre%ailintat! ?!o -et)een the partie. +!rther, there)a already an act!al exitin deadloc/ -et)eenthe partie. =hat )a lac/in )a the $or&alreconition o$ the exitence o$ !ch a deadloc/-eca!e the !nion re$!ed a declaration o$deadloc/.

*r%$ni$ vs. S$+-' Eas- Asian Air,in*s

G.R. No. 19227, April 21, 2014Brion, J.

PROCEDURE AND (URISDICTION; E!!ECT

case updates

Documents