consti digested cased

8/20/2019 Consti Digested Cased

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consti-digested-cased 1/6

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS

BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.,

G.R. 135962, MARCH 27, 2000

Facts: MMDA, petitioner is a government agency tasked with the delivery of

basic services in Metro Manila while the Bel-Air Village Association, nc!,

respondent, is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members arehomeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private s"bdivision in Makati #ity and theregistered owner of $ept"ne %treet, a road inside Bel-Air Village!

&espondent received from petitioner, thro"gh its #hairman, a notice onDecember '(, )**+ re"esting the respondent to open $ept"ne %treet to

p"blic vehic"lar traffic starting an"ary ., )**/!

0n an"ary ., )**/, the respondent instit"ted against the petitioner before the

&egional 1rial #o"rt, Branch )'/, Makati #ity a civil case for in2"nction, it prayed for the iss"ance of a temporary restraining order and a preliminary

in2"nction en2oining the opening of $ept"ne %treet and prohibiting thedemolition of the perimeter wall! 1he trial co"rt then iss"ed a temporaryrestraining order the following day!

1he trial co"rt denied the iss"ance of a preliminary in2"nction! &espondent"estioned the denial before the #o"rt of Appeals! 1he appellate co"rtcond"cted an oc"lar inspection of $ept"ne %treet and iss"ed a writ of

preliminary in2"nction en2oining the implementation of the MMDA3s proposed action on Febr"ary )', )**/!

Appellate #o"rt then rendered a decision on the merits of the case finding

that the MMDA has no a"thority to order the opening of $ept"ne %treet! theld that the a"thority is lodged in the #ity #o"ncil of Makati by ordinance!

4etitioner claimed that it has the a"thority to open the $ept"ne %treet to p"blic traffic beca"se it is an agent of the state endowed with police power inthe delivery of basic services in Metro Manila which is the trafficmanagement which involves the reg"lation of the "se of thoro"ghfares toins"re the safety, convenience and welfare of the general p"blic!

ss"e: 5hether or not MMDA can e6ercise police power7

&"ling: MMDA does not e6ercise police power!

4olice 4ower is an inherent attrib"te of sovereignty! t has been defined asthe power vested by the #onstit"tion in the legislat"re to make, ordain, andestablish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, stat"tes andordinances, either with penalties or witho"t, not rep"gnant to the#onstit"tion, as they shall 2"dge to be for the good and welfare of the

commonwealth, and for the s"b2ects of the same! t is lodged primarily in the $ational 8egislat"re and it cannot be e6ercised by any gro"p or body of

individ"als not possessing legislative power! 9owever, the nationallegislat"re may delegate this power to the 4resident and administrative

boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of M"nicipal #orporation or localgovernment "nits! 0nce delegated, the agents can e6ercise only s"ch

legislative power as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body!

1he powers of the MMDA are limited to formation, coordination, reg"lation,implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies,installation of a system and administration! 1here is no syllable in &!A! .*;

that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power! <ven theMetro Manila #o"ncil has not been delegated any legislative power! =nlikethe legislative bodies of the local government "nits, there is no provision in&!A *.; that empowers the MMDA or it3s #o"ncil to >enact ordinances,approve resol"tions appropriate f"nds for the general welfare? of theinhabitants of Metro Manila!

1he MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, >development a"thority!? t isan agency created for the p"rpose of laying down policies and coordinating

with the vario"s national government agencies, people3s organi@ations, non-governmental organi@ations and the private sector for the efficient and

e6peditio"s delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area! All itsf"nctions are administrative in nat"re and these are act"ally s"mmed "p inthe charter itself! tis not a local government "nit or p"blic corporationendowed with legislative power and has no power to enact ordinances for thewelfare of the comm"nity! t is the local government "nits, acting thro"ghtheir respective legislative co"ncils that possess legislative power and police

power!

n the case at bar, the %angg"niang 4anl"ngsod of Makati #ity did not passany ordinance or resol"tion ordering the opening of $ept"ne %treet! 9ence,MMDA proposed opening by the MMDA is illegal and the respondent #o"rt

of Appeals did not err in r"ling!



DEPARTMENT O EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS AND

DIRECTOR O CENTER OR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT

VS ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO

.R. NO. !9572, D"#"$%"& 21, 19!9

Facts: &oberto &ey #! %an Diego is a grad"ate of the =niversity of the <astwith a degree of Bachelor of %cience in oology! t claims that he took the

$MA1 three times and fl"nked it as many times! 5hen he applied to take itagain, the petitioner re2ected his application on the basis of the aforesaid r"le!9e, then went to the &egional 1rial #o"rt of Valen@"ela, Metro Manila tocompel his admission to the test!

n his original petition for mandam"s, he first invoked his constit"tionalrights to academic freedom and "ality ed"cation! And by agreement of the

parties, he was allowed to the $MA1 sched"led on April )/, )*C* s"b2ect tothe o"tcome of his petition! n an amended petition filed with leave of co"rt,

he s"arely challenged the constit"tionality of M<#% 0rder $o!)., %eries of )*.,containing the r"le! Additional gro"nds were also raise and these ared"e process and e"al protection!

1he respondent 2"dge rendered a decision declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition! t held that the respondent had beendeprived of his right to p"rs"e a medical ed"cation thro"gh an arbitrarye6ercise of police power!

ss"e: 5hether or not the three-fl"nked-r"le is a valid e6ercise of 4olice4ower7

&"ling: 4olice 4ower is validly e6ercised if the interests of the p"blicgenerally, as disting"ished from those of a partic"lar class, re"ire theinterference of the %tate and the means employed are reasonably necessary tothe attainment of the ob2ect so"ght to be accomplished and not "nd"lyoppressive "pon individ"als! 1he proper e6ercise of 4olice 4ower re"iresthe conc"rrence of a lawf"l s"b2ect and a lawf"l method!

1he s"b2ect of the challenged reg"lation is certainly within the ambit of the police power! t is the right and indeed the responsibility of the %tate to ins"rethat the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom

patients may "nwarily entr"st their lives and health!

1he three-fl"nk r"le is intended to ins"late the medical schools and"ltimately the medical profession from the intr"sion of those not "alified to

be doctors!

1he state has the responsibility to harness its h"man reso"rces and to see to itthat they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not "sed at all!

1he right to "ality ed"cation invoked by the private respondent is not

absol"te! 1he #onstit"tion also provides that >every citi@en has the right tochoose a profession or co"rse of st"dy, s"b2ect to fair, reasonable and

e"itable admission and academic re"irements!



LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., VS 'AC LINER,

INC.,

G.R. NO. 1(!339, "%&)*&+ 23, 2005

Facts: A# 8iner, nc!, is a common carrier operating b"ses which playvario"s ro"tes to and from 8"cena #ity, assailedchargedfiled, via a petitionfor prohibition and in2"nction against the #ity of 8"cena, its Mayor and the%angg"niang 4anl"ngsod of 8"cena before the &egional 1rial #o"rt of 8"cen#ity and that the #ity 0rdinance $os! )/') and )C are "nconstit"tional onthe gro"nd that, inter alia, the same constit"ted an invalid e6ercise of police

power, an "nd"e taking of private property and a violation of theconstit"tional prohibition against monopolies!

&espondent who had maintained a terminal within the city, was one of those

affected by the ordinances!

8"cena rand #entral 1erminal, nc!, claiming legal interest as the grantee of the e6cl"sive franchise for the operation of the common terminal, wasallowed to intervene in the petition before the trial co"rt!

1he &1# of 8"cena rendered a 2"dgment declaring that the #ity 0rdinance $o! )/') as valid, having been issied in the e6ercise of the police power of

the #ity overnment of 8"cena! t also declared that the #ity 0rdinance $o!)C n"ll and void, the same being also an "ltra vires act of the #ity

overnment of 8"cena arising from an invalid, oppressive and "nreasonable

e6ercise of police power!

A motion to dismiss was filed by the petitioner b"t it was denied for lack of merit! t elevated it via petition for review "nder &"le ;+, was referred to the#o"rt of Appeals and the appellate co"rt dismissed the petition and affirmedthe challenged orders of the trial co"rt!

ss"e: 5hether or not the #ity of 8"cena properly e6ercised its police power when it enacted the s"b2ect ordinances7

&"ling: 1he local government may be considered as having properly

e6ercised its police power only if the following interest re"isites are metEthe interest of the p"blic generally, as disting"ished from those of a partic"lar

class, re"ire the interference of the state and the means employed arereasonably necessary for the attainment of the ob2ect so"ght to be

accomplished and not "nd"ly oppressive "pon individ"als! 1here m"st be aconc"rrence of a lawf"l s"b2ect and lawf"l method!

1he "estioned ordinance having been enacted with the ob2ective of relievingtraffic congestion in the #ity of 8"cena, they involve p"blic interestwarranting the interference of the state! 1he first re"isite for the proper e6ercise of police power is th"s present!

1he ordinances assailed herein are characteri@ed by overbreadth! 1hey go beyond what is reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem!

Additionally, since the comp"lsory "se of the terminal operated by petitioner wo"ld s"b2ect the "sers thereof to fees, rentals, and charges s"ch meas"re is

"nd"ly oppressive as correctly fo"nd by the appellate co"rt! 5hat sho"ldhave been done was to determine e6actly where the problem lies and then to

stop it right there!

1he tr"e role #onstit"tional 8aw is to effect an e"ilibri"m between

a"thority and liberty so that rights are e6ercised within the framework of thelaw and the laws are enacted with d"e deference to rights! t is itsreasonableness not its effectiveness which bears "pon its constit"tionality! f the constit"tionality of a law were meas"red by its effectiveness then eventyrannical laws may be 2"stified whenever they happen to be effective!



MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND

RANCISCO ATAYDE VS 'OAUIN RODRIGUE

G.R. NO. 161!36, EBRUARY 2!, 2006

Facts: MAA, the government-owned and controlled corporation managingand operating the $inoy A"ino nternational Airport #omple6, implemented

e6pansion programs for its r"nway! 1his necessitated the ac"isition andocc"pation of some of the properties s"rro"nding its premises!

MAA thro"gh its then eneral Manager, petitioner Francisco Atayde,received a letter from respondent proposing to sell at 4.,'+(!(( per s"aremeter, one of the lots already occ"pied by the e6panded r"nway b"t ass"med

as not yet e6propriated by the MAA! 1he proposal did not ripen to a deal!

&espondent bo"ght the bigger lot a portion of which was occ"pied by ther"nway, as well as the rights to claim reasonable rents and damages for the

occ"pation from its owner for 4;,(((,(((!((! 1he property p"rchased per thecovering title has a total area of *,/C s"are meters of which a portion

consisting of ,/C!+ s"are meters was then already occ"pied by ther"nway! 1his occ"pied portion is hereinafter referred to as the s"b2ect lot!

&odrig"e@, thro"gh a co"nsel demanded from the MAA f"ll payment for the property and back rentals for . years amo"nting to 4;/C,C((!((! As he did

not reach an agreement with the MAA, he then filed a case for accionreinvindicatoria with damages! 1he trial co"rt finds that the MAA hadillegally taken possession of the property!

MAA elevated the case to the #o"rt of Appeals! 1he appellate co"rt

modified the trial co"rts decisions holding that &odrig"e@ is entitled to back rentals only from the time he became the registered owner of the property in

)**/! According to the appellate co"rt, the award of rentals was not based ona contract of leaseE rather it was a grant of damages representing "nearned

rentals or "nreali@ed profits! %"ch, damages, it was e6plained m"st have beeninflicted directly "pon the person seeking the indemnificationE th"s,

&odrig"e@ cannot claim damages he did not personally s"stain or "nreali@ed profits before he ac"ired the property!

4etitioners claim that &odrig"e@ was a b"yer in bad faith having p"rchasedthe s"b2ect lot in a highly spec"lative and scheming manner and in

anticipation of a grossly disproportionate amo"nt of profit at the e6pense of the overnment! t f"rther allege that there is no basis for awarding

e6emplary damages and attorney3s fees in favor of &odrig"e@ since theMAA in fact e6erted efforts to negotiate with &odrig"e@!

ss"e: whether or not &odrig"e@ is a b"yer in bad faith in p"rchasing the

property7

&"ling: 4rivate property shall not be taken for p"blic "se witho"t 2"stcompensation! A constit"tional mandate that we m"st once more p"t in force!

1here is >taking? when the e6propriator enters private property not only for amomentary period b"t for a more permanent d"ration, or for the p"rpose of devoting the property to a p"blic "se in s"ch a manner as to o"st the owner and deprive him of all beneficial en2oyment thereof!

n the case at bar, there was taking when the MAA occ"pied a portion

thereof for its e6panded r"nway! 5here the act"al taking was made witho"tthe benefit of e6propriation proceedings, and the owner so"ght recovery of the possession of the property prior to the filing of e6propriation

proceedings! 1he co"rt has invariably r"led that it is the val"e of the property at the time of taking that is controlling for p"rposes of

compensation! 1he proper val"ation for the property in "estion is 4)/,(;!/) per hectare, the price level for )*C. based on the appraisal report

s"bmitted by the commission constit"ted by the trial co"rt to make anassessment of the e6propriated land and fi6 the price thereof on a per hectare

basis! 1he s"b2ect lot was occ"pied as a r"nway of the MAA starting in)*., th"s the val"e of the lot in )*. sho"ld serve as the basis for the award

of compensation to the owner!

&egardless of whether or not &odrig"e@ acted in bad faith, all that he will beentitled to is the val"e of the property at the time of the taking, with legalinterest thereon from that point "ntil f"ll payment of the compensation by theMAA! 9is p"rchase may not even amo"nt to bad faith! Bad faith has beendefined as a state of mind affirmatively operating with f"rtive design or withsome motive of self-interest or ill will or for an "lterior p"rpose and implies aconscio"s and intentional design to do a wrongf"l act for dishonest p"rposeor moral obli"ity!

9ence, &odrig"e@ is not a b"yer in bad faith!



HON. MA. LOURDES ERNANDO VS ST. SCHOLASTICAS

COLLEGE AND ST. SCHOLASTICAS ACADEMY-MARI/INA, INC

G.R. NO. 161107, MARCH 12, 2013

FA#1%: A petition for review on certiorari was filed before the co"rt whichseeks to set aside the decision of the #o"rt of Appeals!

%%# and %t! %cholastica3s Academy-Marikina are ed"cational instit"tions

organi@ed "nder the laws of the &ep"blic of the 4hilippines and the owner of fo"r ;G parcels of land meas"ring a total of +/,'(/!C( s"ares meters,

located in Marikina 9eights! 1he said property is enclosed by tall concrete perimeter fence b"ilt some thirty '(G years ago!

0fficials of the #ity overnment of Marikina are the petitioners in the case

at bar! 1he %angg"niang 4anl"ngsod of Marikina #ity enacted 0rdinance)*., entitled &eg"lating the #onstr"ction of Fences and 5alls in theM"nicipality of Marikina! 1he m"nicipal government seeks to enact andimplement r"les and ordinances to protect and promote the health, safety andmorals of its constit"ent and consistent with the #lean and reen 4rogram of the government! 8owering fences and walls shall enco"rage people to plantmore trees and ornamental plants in their yards, and when visible s"ch treesand ornamental plants are e6pected to create an a"ra of a clean, green and

bea"tif"l environment!

1he abovementioned ordinance reg"lates the constr"ction of all fences, walls

and gates on lots classified or "sed for residential, commercial, ind"strial or special p"rposes! Fences on front yard shall be no more than one )G meter inheight! Fences in e6cess of one )G meter shall be of an open fence type, atleast eighty percent C(HG see-thr" and Fences on the side and back yardshall be in accordance with the provisions of 4!D! )(*/ $ational B"ilding#odeG!

#ity overnment of Marikina sent a letter to the respondents ordering themto demolish and replace the fence of their Marikina property to make it C(Hsee-thr" and at the same time to move it back abo"t /meters to provide

parking space for vehicles to park! &espondents re"ested for an e6tension of

time to comply with the directive and as a response petitioners insisted on theenforcement of the s"b2ect ordinance!

&espondents arg"ed that the petitioners were acting in e6cess of 2"risdictionin enforcing the said s"b2ect ordinance, that demolishing their fence and

constr"cting it /meters back wo"ld res"lt in the loss along east and westdrive! 1h"s, it asserted that the implementation of the ordinance on their

property wo"ld be tantamo"nt to an appropriation of property witho"t d"e process of law and that the petitioners co"ld only appropriate a portion of their property thro"gh eminent domain!

4etitioners co"ntered that the ordinance was a valid e6ercise of police power by virt"e of which they co"ld restrain property rights for the protection of p"blic safety, health, morals or the promotion of p"blic convenience andgeneral prosperity!

&1# rendered a decision granting the petition and ordering the iss"ance of a

writ of prohibition commanding the petitioners to permanently desist fromenforcing or implementing 0rdinance )*. on the respondent3s property! t

held that the petitioners co"ld not take the respondents3 property "nder theg"ise of police power to evade the payment of 2"st compensation!F"rthermore, it agreed with the respondents that the order of the petitioners

to demolish the fence at the %%# property in Marikina and to move it back si6 meters wo"ld amo"nt to an appropriation of property which co"ld only bedone thro"gh the e6ercise of eminent domain!

%ame case was appeal to the #o"rt of Appeals! 1he #A then dismissed the petitioners appeal and affirmed the &1# decision! t reasoned o"t that theob2ectives stated in 0rdinance $o! )*. did not 2"stify the e6ercise of police

power as it did not only seek to reg"late b"t also involved the taking of therespondents3 property witho"t d"e process of law! 1h"s, it r"led that theassailed ordinance co"ld not be "pheld as valid as it clearly invaded the

personal and property rights of the respondents and for being "nreasonable

and "nd"e restraint of trade!

ss"e: 5hether or not %ections '!) and + of 0rdinance )*. are valid e6erciseof police power by the #ity overnment of Marikina7

&"ling: 4olice 4ower is the plenary power vested in the legislat"re to makestat"tes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, ed"cation, goodorder or safety and general welfare of the people! 1he %tate, thro"gh thelegislat"re has delegated the e6ercise of police power to local government"nits, as agencies of the %tate! 1his delegation of police power is embodiedin %ection )/ of the 8ocal overnment #ode of )**) known as the eneral

5elfare #la"se!



8ocal governments may be considered as having properly e6ercised their police power if the following re"isites are met: the interest of the p"blic

generally, as disting"ished from those of a partic"lar class re"ire its e6erciseand the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of

the p"rpose and not "nd"ly oppressive "pon individ"als! 1here m"st be aconc"rrence of a lawf"l s"b2ect and lawf"l method! 8acking of theconc"rrence of these two re"isites, the police power meas"re shall be str"ck down as an arbitrary intr"sion into private rights and a violation of the d"e

process cla"se!

1he #o"rt 2oins the #A in finding that the real intent of the setback re"irement was to make the parking space free for "se by the p"blic,considering that it wo"ld no longer be for the e6cl"sive "se of therespondents as it wo"ld also be available for "se by the general p"blic!%ection * of Article of the )*C #onstit"tion, a provision on eminentdomain, provides that private property shall not be taken for p"blic "sewitho"t 2"st compensation!

Anent the ob2ectives of prevention of concealment of "nlawf"l acts and >"n

neighborliness,? it is obvio"s that providing for a parking area has no logicalconnection to, and is not reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of these goals! &egarding the bea"tification p"rpose of the setback re"irement,it has long been settled that the %tate may not, "nder the g"ise of police

power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial "se of their propertysolely to preserve or enhance the aesthetic appearance of the comm"nity!

1he #o"rt, th"s, finds %ection + to be "nreasonable and oppressive as it wills"bstantially divest the respondents of beneficial "se of their property solelyfor aesthetic p"rpose! Accordingly, %ection + of 0rdinance no!)*. is invalid!

1he principal p"rpose of %ection '!) is to disco"rage, s"ppress or prevent the

concealment of prohibited "nlawf"l acts! 1he "ltimate goal of this ob2ectiveis clearly the prevention of crime to ens"re p"blic safety and sec"rity!

1he right to privacy has long been considered as a f"ndamental rightg"aranteed by the #onstit"tion that m"st be protected from intr"sion or constraint! 1he right to privacy is essentially the right to be let alone, asgovernmental powers sho"ld stop short certain intr"sions into the personallife of its citi@ens! t is inherent in the concept of liberty, enshrined in the Billof &ights in %ections ), .,')G,/,C and ) of Article of the )*C#onstit"tion!

1he enforcement of %ection '!) wo"ld, therefore, res"lt in an "nd"einterference with the respondents3 right to property and privacy! %ection '!)of 0rdinance $o! )*. is th"s, also invalid and cannot be enforced against the

respondents!

consti digested cased

Documents