Supreme Court News Flash

8/10/2019 Supreme Court News Flash

1/41


2/41


3/41

in *++). e also 3or9ed for the local go&ernment of Enrile, Cagayan, as 3ell as taught part/time instructor at the Fni&ersityof Cagayan alley and (.#. argas College and too9 an acti&e part in socio/ci&ic acti&ities.

Macarubbo-s plea for reinstatement, the Court noted, 3as also duly supported by the ntegrated Bar of the =hilippines,Cagayan Chapter and his parish priest 'e&. (r. Camilo Castilleos, 7r., among others. (urthermore, records re&eal that he hasalready settled his pre&ious marital s


4/41

SC 4holds &ismissal of al5ersation Ras a$ainst Arro!o, et al/ re Alle$ed 6WWA)unds isuse

Posted( )ebruar! 7, 201+ ! .a! / Remillo

n a t3o/page minute resolution dated 7anuary 4, *+1, the Supreme Court effecti&ely upheld the "ffice of the "mbudsman!"mbudsman$-s dismissal of the criminal charges filed by former Solicitor ;eneral (rancisco . Cha&e@ against former=resident ;loria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection 3ith the alleged misuse of "&erseas or9ers elfare Administration

!"A$ funds in *++0.

The Court-s Third %i&ision denied the petition and affirmed the (ebruary +, *+* memorandum and September *5, *+*supplemental memorandum of the "mbudsman for petitioner Cha&e@-s failure to sho3 any re&ersible error committed by the"mbudsman.

The Court agreed 3ith the "mbudsman inH !a$ dismissing the complaint against Arroyo, et al.D !*$ holding that the transfer of"A funds to =hilhealth is &alid, andD !c$ the "A funds 3ere used legally. >Fnless tainted 3ith gra&e abuse ofdiscretion, the udgments and orders of the "mbudsman shall not be re&ersed, modified or other3ise interfered 3ith by theCourt,? the resolution stated.n his =etition for 'e&ie3 on Certiorari under 'ule 05, Cha&e@, among others, sought the re&ersal of the assailed "mbudsmanrulings appro&ing the resolution of a %epartment of 7ustice !%"7$ =anel of n&estigators that recommended the dismissal ofmal&ersation charges against Arroyo for the alleged illegal transfer of =51+,1)*,005 in "A Medicare (und to the=hilippine ealth nsurance Corporation !=C$ and of the I15+,+++ from the "A Capital (und to se&eral laborattachJs in the Middle East during the FS/ra< crisis. !Cha&e@ &. Arroyo, ;' os. *+1))0/)5, Min. 'es., 7anuary 4, *+1$

SC 8rants PL&T9s Petition to Set Aside :uashal of Search Warrants

Posted( )ebruar! ;, 201+

The Supreme Court has granted the petition of the =hilippine #ong %istance Telephone !=#%T$ to re&erse and set aside therulings of the Court of Appeals !CA$ that upheld a trial court-s oint order


5/41

the crime of Theft through illegal S' acti&ities e8ists. These pieces of e&idence include affida&its of =#%T people, call detailrecords, results of a traffic study conducted by =#%T on *+ direct telephone lines subscribed by =S, among others.

The Court also found that the subect search 3arrants 3ere not general 3arrants because the items to be sei@ed 3eresufficiently identified physically and 3ere also specifically identified by stating their relation to the offenses charged 3hichare Theft and iolation of =% 0+ through the conduct of illegal S' acti&ities. According to the Court, a search 3arrantissued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be sei@ed in order for it to be &alid,other3ise, it is considered as a general 3arrant 3hich is proscribed by both urisprudence and the 2)4 Constitution.

The Court held that =#%T had legal personality to file the petition saying that the case at bar does not in&ol&e an ordinarycriminal action 3hich re


6/41

C=RCR' PT'T'6S SC 4LLT' o/ 2

Posted( .anuar! .ustice Abad Confers %ithCounsels for 6rderl! 6ral Ar$uments

Posted( .anuar! ;, 201+ ! 8leo S/ 8uerra

The 5 petitions challenging the constitutionality of 'epublic Act o. +45, more commonly 9no3n as the Cybercrime=re&ention Act of *+*, 3ill be coming up for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the afternoon of Tuesday, 7anuary5, *+1. t is the first oral arguments of the Court to be presided o&er by Chief 7ustice Maria #ourdes =. A. Sereno since herappointment as such on August *0, *+*.

To help prepare the counsels for the parties in relation to the multiple issues raised, SC Associate 7ustice 'oberto A. Abadtoo9 the initiati&e of meeting 3ith the said counsels this afternoon to discuss possible ground rules. "ne of the purposes ofthe meeting 3as to determine 3hich of the many issues presented by the &arious petitions should be heard on oral argumentsand 3hich of the remaining issues could be argued in 3ritten Memoranda to be submitted to the Court after the oralarguments.

The final list and se


7/41

SC to Ta?e 4 Prosecutors9 Re3uest for &eferment of the .udicial Affida5it Rule inCriminal Cases

Posted( .anuar! 2, 201+ ! 8leo S/ 8uerra

Chief 7ustice Maria #ourdes =. A. Sereno, responding to a re


8/41


9/41

appropriate go&ernment license or authority, are guilty of illegal recruitment only if they commit any of the 3rongful actsenumerated in Section 6,? held the Court.

n fi8ing uniform penalties, as pro&ided for in Section 4, for each of the enumerated acts under Section 6, the Court ruled that>Congress 3as 3ithin its prerogati&e to determine 3hat indi&idual acts are econsistent 3ith the la3-s declared policy of pro&iding a criminal ustice system that protects and ser&es the bestinterest of the &ictims of illegal recruitment.?

As to the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section +, the Court noted that the >liability of corporate directors andofficers is not automatic. To ma9e them ointly and solidarily liable 3ith their company, there must be a finding that they3ere remiss in directing the affairs of that company.?

The Court also held moot the issue as to the constitutionality of the deregulation pro&isions of recruitment and migration ofo&erseas 3or9ers in Sections *2 and 1+ of 'A )+0* as these pro&isions had been repealed by 'A 20**, 3hich adopts thepolicy of close go&ernment regulation of the recruitment and deployment of "(s. !;' o. 5*60*, on. Sto. Tomas &.Salac. et. al., ;' o. 5*4+, on. Sto. Tomas &. on. =aneda et. al., ;' o. 6452+, =hilippines &. =ASE, ;' o. )*24)/42, Becmen Ser&ice E8porter and =romotion, nc. &. Spouses Cuaresma, P ;' o. )0*2)/22, Spouses Cuaresma &. hite(alcon Ser&ices, nc., %ecember 5, *+*$

SC 8rants .udicial Clemenc! to Reformed .ud$e

Posted( &ecember *, 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

A dismissed udge, no3 4, 3ho 3as perpetually banned from public office has been been allo3ed by the igh Court to reointhe go&ernment.

The Supreme Court En Banc, through an eight page resolution by 7ustice Estela M. =erlas/Bernabe, granted udicial clemencyto dismissed 7udge ermin E. Arceo formerly of the San (ernando, =ampanga 'egional Trial Court, Branch 01 by lifting hisdis


10/41


11/41


12/41

SC( SB )ederation President of Subic, ambales Sta!s

Posted( 6ctober 1D, 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

The Sangguniang abataan !S$ (ederation =resident of Subic, Uambales gets to 9eep his post.This after the Supreme Court-s Second %i&ision affirmed the Court of Appeals !CA$-s ruling setting aside that of the S Boardof Election Super&isors !BES$ of Subic, Uambales and the 'egional Trial Court of "longapo City 3hich had nullified the

proclamation of 'ay Mar9 'igonan as S (ederation =resident of Subic, Uambales.

n a nine/page e8tended resolution, the Court denied the petition assailing the CA decision of the S BES of Subic Uambalesand Maureen Sa3ey, 3ho garnered the second highest number of &otes ne8t to 'igonan.

The CA had found that the S BES committed gra&e abuse of discretion in ruling that 'igonan-s ans3er in the electionprotest against him 3as filed late as 'igonan-s ans3er 3as filed on the ne8t 3or9ing day after the due date on %ecember 5,*++, a Sunday, in accordance 3ith 'ule **, sec. of the 'ules of Court. "n petition for certiorari by 'igonan to the 'TC, the'TC granted the motion to dismiss of both the Subic S BES and Sa3ey.

The Court held that it 3as clear in its assailed order that the 'TC has already made a final determination of the case before itnot only on the ground of non/e8haustion of administrati&e remedies but also on the &ery ground that 'igonan-s allegation ofdepri&ation of due process did not constitute gra&e abuse of discretion.

Simply putthe 'egional Trial Court had already ruled that the act of nullifying the proclamation of 'igonan as S(ederation president 3ithout ta9ing into consideration the ans3er he filed did not amount to gra&e abuse of discretion. TheCourt of Appeals 3as, therefore, correct in re&ie3ing the merits of the case and in so nullifying the assailed board resolution3ithout remanding the case to the 'egional Trial Court for further trial,? the Court held.

The Court also noted that the case does not in&ol&e an electi&e official under Chapter , Title of the #ocal ;o&ernment Codeof 22 nor an officer of the=ederasyon ng mga Sangguniang abataan co&ered by sec. *5* of the "mnibus Election Code soresort to udicial re&ie3 is an option from the BES ruling particularly since 'igonan-s petition for certiorari to the 'TC raisespure , 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

The Supreme Court, &oting +/1, has denied 3ith finality the motions for reconsideration of its 7une *), *+ decision thatdirected the Securities and E8change Commission !SEC$ to in&estigate the =hilippine #ong %istance Telephone Co. !=#%T$for possible &iolation of the constitutional limit on foreign o3nership in utilities.


13/41

n a 5/page resolution penned by Senior 7ustice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court En Banc declared that it >no further pleadingsshall be entertained? in the case.7oining Senior 7ustice Carpio in his ponencia 3ere Chief 7ustice Maria #ourdes =. A. Sereno and 7ustices Teresita 7.#eonardo/%e Castro, Arturo %. Brion, %iosdado M. =eralta, #ucas =. Bersamin, Mariano C. %el Castillo, Martin S. illarama,7r., 7ose =ortugal =ere@, and 7ose Catral Mendo@a.

7ustices =resbitero 7. elasco, 7r. 3rote a dissenting opinion and 3as oined by 7ustice Bien&enido #. 'eyes. 7ustice 'obertoA. Abad 3rote a separate dissenting opinion.

7ustice Estela M. =erlas/Bernabe did not ta9e part due to prior participation in a related case.

The Court clarified that it did not decide, and in fact refrained from ruling on the


14/41

The Court e8plained that the right to elect directors, coupled 3ith beneficial o3nership, translates to effecti&e control. TheCourt stressed that its assailed decision >declares that the 6+ percent (ilipino o3nership reimperati&e that such recapital? in determining the e8tent of allo3able foreigno3nership in =#%T and to impose the appropriate sanctions under the la3 if there is any &iolation of sec. , Art. : of theConstitution.

7ustice elasco in his dissenting opinion opined that =#%T should be gi&en time to underta9e the necessary measures toma9e its capital structure compliant, and the SEC should formulate appropriate guidelines and super&ise the process. eadded that SEC should also adopt rules and regulations to implement the prospecti&e compliance by all affected companies3ith the ne3 ruling on the interpretation of Sec. , Art. : of the Constitution.

(or his part, 7ustice Abad opined that Sec. , Art. : already pro&ides limitations on foreign participation in public utilities,hence, the Court need not add more by further restricting the meaning of the term >capital? 3hen none 3as intended by theframers of the 2)4 Constitution. e 3rote that the authority to define >capital? in the said pro&ision belongs to Congress aspart of its policy ma9ing po3er. ;ranting other3ise, he opined that >capital? encompasses the entirety of a corporation-s

outstanding capital stoc9 and that the Court can simply adopt such interpretation of Constitution Commission by (r. 7oalac9 corroboration, are not supported by independent and credible e&idence, and thus stand on nebulousground.? Moreo&er, the e&idence sho3ed that Sae@-s mobility 3as ne&er curtailed that he had a mobile phone and thus canreadily see9 assistance. >;i&en that the totality of the e&idence presented by the petitioner failed to support his claims, thereliefs prayed for, therefore, cannot be granted. The liberality accorded to amparo and habeas data cases does not mean that a


15/41

claimant is dispensed 3ith the onus of pro&ing his case. ndeed, e&en the liberal standard of substantial e&idence demandssome ade


16/41

gross neglect of duty and gra&e misconduct relati&e to the case of the dismissed policeman 3ho perpetrated the *++ Manilahostage/drama 3hich had left eight ong ong tourists dead.Se&en ustices also &oted to uphold the constitutionality of sec. )!*$ of 'A 644+, the "mbudsman Act of 2)2, 3hich grantsthe =resident the po3er to remo&e a %eputy or the Special =rosecutor >for any grounds pro&ided for the remo&al of the"mbudsman, and after due process,? under 3hich the "= instituted separate proceedings against ;on@ales and Special=rosecutor endell Barreras/Sulit. The latter 3as charged in connection 3ith her handling of the plunder and anti/moneylaundering cases against former Maor ;eneral Carlos (. ;arcia. Barreras/Sulit and her staff had sought and 3as granted bythe Sandiganbayan appro&al of a =lea Bargaining Agreement !=#EBA'A$ entered into 3ith Maor ;eneral ;arcia. Both;on@ales and Barreras/Suilt assailed the foregoing pro&ision.

7oining the ponente 7ustice Estela M. =erlas/Bernabe in upholding sec. )!*$ of 'A 644+ 3ere Chief 7ustice Maria #ourdes =.A. Sereno, Senior 7ustice Antonio T. Carpio, and 7ustices %iosdado M. =eralta, Mariano C. %el Castillo, Martin S. illarama,7r., and Bien&enido #. 'eyes. Senior 7ustice Carpio 3rote a concurring opinion 3herein he opined that >the "mbudsman isnot constitutionally empo3ered to act alone. Congress can e&en authori@e the %epartment of 7ustice or the "ffice of the=resident to in&estigate cases 3ithin the urisdiction of the "mbudsman. Similarly, the "mbudsman can in&estigate pubicofficers and employees 3ho are under the disciplinary authority of heads of other bodies and agencies%uplication offunctions may not at all times promote efficiency, but it is not proscribed by the Constitution.?

n its 5+/page consolidated decision, the Court also ruled that the "=-s pronouncement of administrati&e accountabilityagainst petitioner ;on@ales and the imposition upon him of the corresponding penalty of dismissal must be re&ersed and setaside, as the findings of neglect of duty or misconduct in office do not amount to a betrayal of public trust. Thus, the=resident, 3hile he may be &ested 3ith authority, cannot order the remo&al of petitioner as %eputy "mbudsman, there beingno intentional 3rongdoing of the gra&e and serious 9ind amounting to a betrayal of public trust. There being no e8istingground for remo&al against ;on@ales, the Court ruled that he is entitled to reinstatement to his former position as %eputy"mbudsman 3ith bac93ages corresponding to the period of suspension effecti&e immediately.

onetheless, in &ie3 of the "=-s factual findings of negligence and misconduct against ;on@ales, the Court deemed itappropriate to refer the case to the "ffice of the "mbudsman for further in&estigation of the charges against ;on@ales.

The Court also affirmed the continuation of "=/%C Case o. /B/++1 against Special =rosecutor Barreras/Sulit for heralleged acts and omissions tantamount to culpable &iolation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, in accordance3ith sec. )!*$ of the "mbudsman Act of 2)2. The Court ruled that the appro&al or disappro&al of the =#EBA'A by theSandiganbayan is of no conse


17/41

The hostage/drama spa3ned the creation of the ncident n&estigation and 'e&ie3 Committee, chaired by 7ustice Secretary#eila de #ima and &ice/chaired by then nterior and #ocal ;o&ernment Secretary 7esus 'obredo, 3hich had identified;on@ales as among those accountable for the crisis. Charges 3ere filed against ;on@ales and on March 1, *+, the "=dismissed him for >gross neglect of duty and gra&e misconduct constituting betrayal of public trust.? !;' o.26*1, ;on@ales &. "=D ;' o. 26*1*, Sulit &. "choa, September 0, *+*$

SC Reinstates Reublic9s Petition for Certiorari in CTP roriation Case

Posted( Setember 21, 2012 ! 8leo S/ 8uerra

The Supreme Court has recently ordered the Court of Appeals !CA$ to reinstate and to proceed 3ith dispatch as to the'epublic of the =hilippines- petition for certiorari 3hich the CA had earlier dismissed for late filing. n the said petition, the'epublic assailed the trial court-s denial of its urgent motion for a 3rit of possession and order for it to immediately paypri&ate respondent St. incent de =aul Colleges, nc. ++G of the &alue of the property the 'epublic had sought to e8propriatefor the construction of the Manila/Ca&ite Toll E8press3ay =roect !MCTE=$.

n dismissing the 'epublic-s petition for certiorari for being filed out of time, the CA had relied on the SCRs #aguna MettsCorporation ruling that the 6+/day period to file a petition for certiorari is non/e8tendible.n a */page decision penned by 7ustice Bien&enido #. 'eyes, the Court-s Second %i&ision, ho3e&er, reiterated that 3hileunder 'ule 65, sec. 0 and as applied in #aguna Metts Corporation, the general rule is that a petition for certiorari must befiled 3ithin 6+ days from notice of the udgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed, under e8ceptional circumstancesand subect to the sound discretion of the Court, said period may be e8tended pursuant to the %omdom, #abao, and Mid/slands =o3er ;eneral Corporation rulings.n this case, the Court held that the CA should ha&e admitted the 'epublic-s petition since first, due to its !the CA-s$ o3nlapse, thin9ing that 3hat the 'epublic had filed 3as a petition for re&ie3, it granted the e8tension sought by the 'epublicDsecond, because of the public interest in&ol&ed, i.e., e8propriation of pri&ate property for public use !MCTE=$D and finally, noundue preudice or delay 3ill be caused to the parties in admitting the petition. !;' o.2*2+), 'epublic &. St. incent de=aul Colleges, nc., August **, *+*$

SC Clears T%o .ud$es Clarifies Rule on Raffle

Posted( Setember 21, 2012 ! ianca / Padilla

'affle Committees of all multi/sala stations are reminded to strictly adhere to the procedure for assigning cases among the

Branches in the stations, subect only to the e8ceptions recogni@ed in Circular o. 4.?

Thus stressed the Supreme Court as it recently granted the separate motions for reconsideration filed by E8ecuti&e 7udgeMaria Cancino/Erum and 7udge Carlos alen@uela to set aside the Court-s 7une 1, *++2 resolution adopting therecommendation of the "ffice of the Court Administrator !"CA$ finding both udges guilty of &iolating "CA Circular o. *+,3hich pro&ides for the rules regulating the raffle of cases, and a fining them =5,+++.++ each.

The Court li9e3ise dismissed the administrati&e charges filed against 7udge Cancino/Erum and 7udge alen@uela by the;o&ernment Ser&ice nsurance System !;SS$ for assigning 3ithout the benefit of a raffle as ree8isting practice adopted by consensusamong the 'TC 7udges in Mandaluyong 3hereby a branch to 3hich a T'" 3as already raffled 3ould be e8cluded from the


18/41

ne8t raffle for the purpose of eas no substantial arguments 3erepresented to 3arrant the re&ersal of the


19/41

The Court had held in the April *, *+ resolution that considering the physical configuration of the =hilippine archipelago,there is a greater li9elihood that islands or group of islands 3ould form part of the land area of a ne3ly/created pro&ince thanin most cities or municipalities. >t is therefore logical to infer that the genuine legislati&e policy decision 3as e8pressed inSection 00* !for municipalities$ and Section 05+ !for component cities$ of the #;C, but 3as inad&ertently omitted in Section06 !for pro&inces$. The Court had added that >3hen the e8emption 3as e8pressly pro&ided in Article 2!*$ of the #;C/'',the inclusion 3as intended to correct the congressional o&ersight in Section 06 of the #;C Q and to reflect the true legislati&eintent. t 3ould, then, be in order for the Court to uphold the &alidity of Article !*$ of the #;C/''.?

The Court had also held that %inagat-s land area is not conclusi&e in sho3ing that it cannot become a pro&ince, ta9ing intoaccount its a&erage annual income, 3hich is four times more than the minimum renot be instrumental instunting such capacity.?

"n "ctober *, *++6, then =resident Arroyo signed into la3 'A 2155. The Comelec thus conducted a plebiscite for theratification of the pro&ince under the #;C. The %inagatnons elected their ne3 set of electi&e officials during the May *++4synchroni@ed polls.

n o&ember *++6, the petitioners filed before the Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, applies only to %inagat sland, not to all local go&ernment units aspiringto be a pro&ince, and therefore could not ha&e amended the re


20/41

constitute a >special trust fund,? the disbursement of 3hich should al3ays be aligned 3ith the F=-s mission and purpose, andshould al3ays be subect to auditing by the C"A. >ence the funds subect of this action could not be &alidly made the subectof the 'TC-s 3rit of e8ecution or garnishment. The ad&erse udgment rendered against the F= in a suit to 3hich it hadimpliedly consented 3as not immediately enforceable by e8ecution against the F= because suability of the State did notnecessarily means its liability,? ruled the Court.

The Court also ruled that the C"A must first adudicate pri&ate respondents- claim before e8ecution should proceed ase8pressly pro&ided in =% 005, sec. *6. t held that Stern Builders, et al. should first see9 the appro&al of the C"A of theirmonetary claim. As to the 'TC, the Court declared that it acted beyond its urisdiction by authori@ing the 3ithdra3al of the

garnished funds of the F= such that all its orders and issuances thereon 3ere &oid and of no legal effect.The Court also found the declaration of finality of udgment of the 'TC to be 3ithout merit. t found that the period to appealdid not run from ser&ice of the 'TC-s denial of the F=-s motion for reconsideration because the same 3as ser&ed not on theF=-s counsel of record. Moreo&er, the Court ruled that efresh/period rule? in the September 5, *++5 decision in eypes &. Court of Appeals allo3ing a fresh period of 5 days 3ithin3hich to file a notice of appeal in the 'TC counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for ne3 trial or motion forreconsideration. t noted that the decision in


21/41

a guard for each floor, but such recommendation had been disappro&ed by Shangri/#a because it claimed it >3as not doing3ell? at that particular time.

The Court held that it could be inferred from de ;u@man-s declarations that Shangri/#a 3as negligent in pro&iding adeit 3as e8ercising reasonable care to protect its guests from harm and danger by pro&idingsufficient security commensurate to it being one of the finest hotels in the country.?

The Court agreed 3ith the trial court that liability on the part of the hotel 3as based upon the fact that it 3as >in a betterposition that the inured person to foresee and pre&ent the happening of the inurious occurrence.?

The Court further held that arper-s heirs 3ere able to competently establish their relationship and filiation to him by theirdocumentary e&idence. t applied the principle of substantial compliance 3hich recogni@es that e8igencies and situations dooccasionally demand some fle8ibility in the rigid application of the rules of procedure and the la3s. t found that eforemost of 3hich is that respondents had gone to great lengths to submit the documents.?

arper came to Manila on a business trip in the first 3ee9 of o&ember 222. e chec9ed in at the Shangri/#a otel and 3asdue to chec9 out on o&ember 6, 222. n the early morning of that date, ho3e&er, he 3as murdered inside his hotel room bystill unidentified malefactors.

arper-s heirs commenced a suit in the 'TC to reco&er &arious damages from Ma9ati Shangri/#a. The 'TC ruled in fa&or ofthe heirs and found Ma9ati Shangri/#a remiss in its duties and thus liable for arper-s death."n appeal, the CA affirmed theudgment of the 'TC, 3ith the modification.

SC &ismisses &isbarment Case A$ainst LaFaro La% 6ffice La%!ers

Posted( Setember 11, 2012 ! ianca / Padilla

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed the complaint for disbarment filed by 7asper 7uno (. 'odica !'odica$ against,

among others, Atty. Manuel M. #a@aro, Atty. Ed3in M. Espeo, Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B. #a@aro, and Atty.7oseph C. Tan for gross and serious misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, and &iolation of the Code of=rofessional 'esponsibility.

Atty. Manuel #a@aro, Atty. Espeo, Atty. Almario, and Atty. Michelle #a@aro are all la3yers of the M.M. #a@aro and Associates#a3 "ffice and counsel of illiam Strong !Strong$, 'odica-s li&e/in partner. 'espondents e8pedited Strong-s release fromdetention in the Bureau of mmigration as 3ell as his departure from the =hilippines.

'odica filed the disbarment compliant against the aforesaid #a@aro #a3 "ffice la3yers, alleging she 3as decei&ed by theminto 3ithdra3ing her 'TC case for the reco&ery of her Boracay property as a condition sine dosomething bad? against her and her family.

n the )/page resolution penned by 7ustice Mariano C. %el Castillo, the Court-s (irst %i&ision unanimously held that 'odicahad failed to o&ercome the presumption of innocence based on the totality of e&idence presented by her. >n suspension anddisbarment proceedings, la3yers enoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant toclearly pro&e her allegations by preponderant e&idence. n the absence of preponderant e&idence, the presumption ofinnocence of a la3yer continues and the complaint against him must be dismissed,? it declared.

The Court also added that gi&en the chronology of e&ents, there can be no relation bet3een the deportation case of illiamStrong !Strong$ and the 3ithdra3al of the 'TC case of 'odica. Fndisputed records sho3 that the 'TC case 3as dismissed onMarch *2, *+ and 'odica filed for a motion for reconsideration on April ), *+. "n May 5, *+, Strong 3as arrested anddetained. After the Bureau of mmigration granted Strong-s Motion to oluntarily #ea&e the Country on May *5, *+, he left


22/41

the country on May 1, *+. t 3as only on 7une 6, *+ that 'odica filed her Manifestation to ithdra3 Motion for'econsideration. Thus, the Court noted that the >'TC case 3as filed long before Strong 3as arrested and detained. The 'TCcase had already been dismissed long before Strong engaged the legal ser&ices of #a@aro #a3 "ffice.? t further noted that'odica 3as not a client of the #a@aro #a3 "ffice nor 3as Strong a party to the 'TC case. %espite Atty. Espeo-s participationin 3riting the Manifestation to ithdra3 Motion for 'econsideration and putting #a@aro #a3 "ffice in the pleading, theCourt held there is no e&idence to sho3 that 'odica retained the #a@aro #a3 "ffice to handle her case as Atty. butnande 3assho3n to be her counsel of record. n fact, she admitted in her s3orn affida&it that the la3yers from #a@aro #a3 "ffice >3ereengaged by Strong to handle his case 3ith the =hilippine immigration authorities.? >This Court is more inclined to belie&ethat the #a@aro #a3 "ffice agreed to handle only the deportation case of Strong and such acceptance cannot be construed as

to include the 'TC case. n fact, all the billings of #a@aro #a3 "ffice pertained to the immigration case and not to the 'TCcase,? ruled the Court.

Based on preponderance of e&idence submitted, the Court held that it is clear that 'odica-s purpose in 3ithdra3ing the 'TCcase 3as to facilitate the sale of the Boracay property to =hilip Apostol, 3ho 3as not interested in buying the property unlessit 3as cleared of all pending cases in order to protect himself as the buyer. n fact, it found that 'odica e&entually e8ecuted a%eed of Absolute Sale in fa&or of Apostol o&er the Boracay property.

Atty. Espeo, ho3e&er, 3as 3arned to be more circumspect and prudent in his actuations after it 3as pro&en that upon'odica-s re


23/41

=etitioner is yet to regain her political right to see9 electi&e office. Fnless she e8ecutes a s3orn renunciation of herAustralian citi@enship, she is ineligible to run for and hold any electi&e office in the =hilippines,? held the Court.

The Court also held that it cannot read the Australian Citi@en Act of 24) under 3hich petitioner claim she deemed to ha&elost her Australian citi@enship into 'A 2**5 as the Court 3ould be >applying not 3hat the legislati&e department has deemed3ise to reAny 9indof interference on ho3 these retirement pri&ileges and benefits are e8ercised and a&ailed of &iolates the fiscal autonomy and


24/41

independence of the 7udiciary, but also encroaches upon the constitutional duty and pri&ilege of the Chief 7ustice and theSupreme Court En Banc to manage the 7udiciary-s o3n affairs.?

The Court said that this &ie3 finds full support in the ;o&ernment Accounting and Auditing Manual, olume , particularlySection 5+ of Title 4, Chapter 1, 3hich states that >the full and sole authority and responsibility for the di&estment anddisposal of property and other assets o3ned by the national go&ernment agenciesshall be lodged in the heads of thedepartments, bureaus, and offices of the national go&ernment.?

This pro&ision clearly recogni@es that the Chief 7ustice, as the head of the 7udiciary, possesses the full and sole authority andresponsibility to di&est and dispose of the properties and assets of the 7udiciaryD as ead of the "ffice, he determines themanner and the conditions of disposition, 3hich in this case relate to a benefit,? said the igh Court.

The Court emphasi@edH >As the usual practice of the Court, this authority is e8ercised by the Chief 7ustice in consultation 3iththe Court En Banc. o3e&er, 3hether e8ercised by the Chief 7ustice or by the Supreme Court En Banc, the grant of suchauthority and discretion in unemust be read not only in light of the Court-s fiscal autonomy, but also in relation 3ith the constitutional pro&isions onudicial independence and the e8isting urisprudence and Court rulings on these matters.?

The igh Court added that one of the most important aspects of udicial independence is the constitutional grant of fiscalautonomy.

hile, as a general proposition, the authority of legislatures to control the purse in the first instance in un


25/41

submitted in compliance the follo3ingH $ =etition for 'e/Ac


26/41

;arcia, among others, argued that the confirmation issued by the "= directing his t3o/year detention in a penitentiary hadalready been fully ser&ed follo3ing his pre&enti&e confinement. e 3as released on %ecember 6, *++ after a pre&enti&econfinement for si8 years and t3o months. e 3as initially confined at his


27/41

SC &ismisses &isbarment Comlaint A$ainst Senior .ustice Cario

Posted( Au$ust 10, 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

The Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed outright the complaint/affida&it for disbarment against Senior Associate7ustice Antonio T. Carpio filed by #auro ;. i@conde.

n a t3o/page resolution, the Court En Banc held that it found no basis to proceed 3ith the disbarment complaint against

Senior Associate 7ustice Carpio in light of Article :, Section * of the Constitution 3hich pro&ides that members of theSupreme Court >may be remo&ed from office, on impeachment for, and con&iction of, culpable &iolation of the Constitution,treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.?Thus in n 'eH 'aul M. ;on@ale@ and Marcoleta &. Borra, the igh Court ga&e full effect to the e8clusi&e terms of Art. :,Section * by ruling that public officers such as members of the Supreme Court 3ho are recannot be charged 3ithdisbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.?

Thus, 3e are barred by no less than the Constitution from entertaining complainant #auro ;. i@conde-s complaint againstSenior Associate 7ustice Antonio T. Carpio, currently a sitting 7ustice of this Court,? ruled the Court. Senior Associate 7usticeCarpio inhibited, 3hile 7ustices Maria #ourdes =.A. Sereno and Estela M. =erlas/Bernabe 3ere on lea&e. !AM o. */)/0/SC, Min. 'es., !'eH Complaint/Affida&it for %isbarment Against Senior Associate 7ustice Antonio T. Carpio (iled by Mr.#auro ;. i@conde, August +, *+*$

Sureme Court 4holds 6 1+ Abolishin$ PA8C and Transferrin$ its )unctions tothe 6&SLA

Posted( Au$ust +, 2012 ! ianca / Padilla

The Supreme Court En Banc has unanimously dismissed the petition of =rospero =ichay, 7r., former Chairperson of theBoard of Trustees of the #ocal ater Ftilities Administration !#AF$, the =resident mayaugment any item in the ;eneral Appropriations #a3 for their respecti&e offices from sa&ings in other items of theirrespecti&e appropriations.? As such, the =resident is merely allocating the e8isting funds pre&iously appropriated by Congressfor his office, the Court e8plained.

The Court also ruled that A%/"%ES#A is a fact/finding and recommendatory body not &ested 3ith


28/41

against him constitute the minimum rethe e


29/41

storing of data information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrie&ed party. !;' o.21616, ;amboa &s =KSSupt Chan and =KSupt (ang, 7uly *0, *+*$

SC( )or o%, Sen/ scudero, Re/ Tuas a! oth Sit in .C

Posted( Au$ust +, 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

The Supreme Court today allo3ed Senator (rancis 7oseph ;. Escudero and 'ep. iel C. Tupas, 7r. to both sit in thedeliberations of the 7udicial and Bar Council !7BC$ on 3ho 3ould be included in the short list of nominees for Chief 7ustice tobe submitted to MalacaNang.

The igh Court-s directi&e came a day after it heard in oral arguments the motion for reconsideration of its 7uly 4, *+*decision filed by the "ffice of the Solicitor ;eneral representing Sen. Escudero and 'ep. Tupas, 7r., on the Court-s 7uly 4,*+* decision on ;' o. *+**0*, (rancisco . Cha&e@ &. 7udicial and Bar Council, 3hich held that only one member ofCongress can sit as representati&e in the 7BC deliberations.

n a three/page resolution, the Court also suspended the effect of the second paragraph of the dispositi&e portion of the 7uly4, *+* decision, 3hich readsH >This disposition is immediately e8ecutory.

The Court, in its latest resolution, also ga&e the 7BC, Sen. Escudero, 'ep. Tupas, 7r., and (rancisco . Cha&e@ + days from

notice 3ithin 3hich to file their respecti&e memoranda.

n the best interest of ustice, the igh Court also held that all its present members, including those 3ho in the meantimeha&e inhibited themsel&es, be gi&en the opportunity to ta9e part in the final deliberations and resolution of the petitionconsidering the ris9 of either under/representation or o&er/representation of Congress in the 7BC.

The Court finds it more e


30/41

The Court held that at the time the A issued 'esolution o. 060 in 2)*, Section 1 of =% 524 had already e8presslyrepealed all decrees, e8ecuti&e orders, and issuances that authori@ed the grant of allo3ance to groups of officials or employeesdespite the inconsistency of those allo3ances 3ith the position classification or rates indicated in the ational Compensationand =osition Classification =lan.

The Court added that 'A 645), other3ise 9no3n as the Compensation and =osition Classification Act of 2)2, furtherreinforced this policy by e8pressly decreeing that all allo3ances not specifically enumerated therein shall be deemed includedin the standardi@ed salary rates prescribed.

n this case, the incenti&e allo3ances granted under 'esolution o. 060 are clearly not among those enumerated under 'A645),? noted the Court. t added that neither had there been any allegation that the allo3ances 3ere specifically determinedby the %epartment of Budget and Management to be an e8ception to the standardi@ed salary rates. >ence, such allo3ancescan no longer be granted after the effecti&ity of 'A 645).?

The Court ruled that the claim of the petitioners that 'A 645) does not apply to the incenti&e allo3ances because these aremerely temporary in nature and are gi&en only to fe3 employees does not hold 3ater. t noted that a reading of 'A 645)sho3s that it does not distinguish 3hether allo3ances are permanent in nature or are pro&ided to an entire class ofgo&ernment employees. >n fact, the la3 itself pro&ides that it is the policy of the state to pro&ide e


31/41

The Court differentiated a go&ernment/o3ned or controlled corporation !;"CC$ &is/W/&is a go&ernment instrumentality.Citing Manila nternational Airport Authority &. Court of Appeals, it noted that a ;"CC created thru special charters mustmeet t3o conditionsH that the ;"CC is established for the common good and that it meets the test of economic &iability. ncontrast, go&ernment instrumentalities &ested 3ith corporate po3ers and performing go&ernmental or public functions neednot meet the test of economic &iability since these instrumentalities perform essential public ser&ices for the common good.='A pro&ides a coordinated, economical, and efficient reclamation of lands and the administration and operation of landsbelonging to the go&ernment 3ith the obect of ma8imi@ing their utili@ation and hastening their de&elopment consistent 3ithpublic interest, the Court declared. !;' o. 2+2, =hilippines &. City of =araNa, 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

The 7udicial and Bar Council !7BC$ today announced that it 3ill not any more inter&ie3 and consider for nomination pri&atela3yer icente '. elas


32/41


33/41

The Court stressed that the calling out po3ers contemplated under the Constitution is e8clusi&e to the =resident of the=hilippines as Commander/in/Chief and that a pro&incial go&ernor is not endo3ed 3ith the po3er to call upon the Armed(orces at its o3n bidding.

t ruled that only the =resident is authori@ed to e8ercise emergency po3ers as pro&ided under Section *1, Article and thecalling out po3ers under Section 4, Article of the 2)4 Constitution. hile the =resident e8ercises full super&ision andcontrol o&er the police, a local chief e8ecuti&e, such as a pro&incial go&ernor, only e8ercises operational super&ision o&er thepolice, and may e8ercise control only in day/to/day operations. As discussed in the deliberation of the ConstitutionalCommission, only the =resident has >full discretion to call the military 3hen in his udgment it is necessary to do so in order

to pre&ent or suppress la3less &iolence, in&asion or rebellion,? the Court stressed.The Court also held that ;o&ernor Tan-s reliance on Section 065 of the #ocal ;o&ernment Code 3as unfounded because a9idnapping situation cannot be considered a calamity or disaster as contemplated by the Code, 3hich allo3s the ChiefE8ecuti&e to >carry out emergency measures as may be necessary during and in the aftermath of a man/made and naturaldisasters and calamities?.

The Court li9e3ise declared the creation of the CE( in&alid as the Section * of Article : of the Constitution does notauthori@e the pro&incial go&ernor to organi@e pri&ate armed groups to help preser&e the peace and order of a region, 3hich isthe responsibility of local police agencies as pro&ided by la3. The defense and security of the regions, on the other hand, shallbe the responsibility of the ational ;o&ernment.

;o&ernor Tan declared a state of emergency after the Abu Sayyaf ;roup !AS;$ 9idnapped three members of the nternationalCommittee of the 'ed Cross !C'C$ in Sulu and threatened to behead one of the hostages if the go&ernment continued topursue their search and surround the AS;. An e&acuation of the military camps and bases in the area 3as li9e3ise demanded.n lieu of the state of emergency, ;o&ernor Tan authori@ed the set up of chec9points and cho9epoints, conduct general searchand sei@ures including arrests and other actions necessary to ensure public safety pursuant to Section 065 of the #ocal;o&ernment Code. !;' o. )4*2), ulayan &. Tan, 7uly 1, *+*$

Sureme Court 4holds &ismissal of Char$es A$ainst Reiner .acobi, et al/

Posted( .ul! 17, 2012 ! ianca / Padilla

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the =residential Commission on ;ood ;o&ernment!=C;;$ and its then Chairperson Magdangal Elma against t3o resolutions issued by Merceditas ;uiterre@, acting asFndersecretary of the %epartment of 7ustice !%"7$, 3hich found no probable cause for falsification and use of falsifieddocument e8isted against 'einer 7acobi and his attorney, Crispin 'eyes 3ere not tainted 3ith any gra&e abuse of discretion.

n a 06/page decision penned by 7ustice Arturo %. Brion, the CourtRs Second %i&ision unanimously held that =C;; andChairman Elma failed to establish the e8istence of gra&e abuse of discretion on the %"7-s part ustifying udicial interference.t stressed that the determination of probable cause is an e8ecuti&e function to 3hich the Court has consistently adopted thepolicy of non/interference in the conduct of preliminary in&estigations and to lea&e the in&estigating prosecutor 3ithsufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of 3hat constitutes sufficient e&idence to establish probable cause. As arule, the courts cannot substitute their o3n udgment for that of the E8ecuti&e. To ustify udicial intrusion, one must clearlysho3 that the prosecutor gra&ely abused his discretion amounting to lac9 or e8cess of urisdiction in ma9ing hisdetermination.

The Court also held that since preliminary in&estigations is a determination of the e8istence of probable cause that a crimehas been committed and the accused probably committed it and does not in&ol&e a determination of the guilt or innocence ofan accused, the presumption that a person 3ho has in his possession !actual or constructi&e$ a falsified document and madeuse of it, ta9ing ad&antage of it andKor profiting from such use also authori@ed the falsification does not apply in preliminary

in&estigations. Mere possession of a falsified letter is li9e3ise not enough to apply the presumption of authorship, it added.

t stressed that the crime of introducing a falsified document in a udicial proceeding punishable under Article 4* ofthe 'e&ised =enal Code re


34/41


35/41

Teodoro %. 'egala, ictor =. #a@atin, Elea@ar B. 'eyes, Eduardo F. Escueta, #eo 7. =alma, %ouglas #u Lm, Sigfredo eloso,and 7aime ;andiaga$ could no longer be prosecuted on the ground of prescription.

7ustices Mariano C. %el Castillo, #ucas =. Bersamin, Martin S. illarama 7r., 7ose =ortugal =ere@, and Bien&enido #. 'eyesconcurred 3ith the decision, 3hile 7ustices Arturo %. Brion, Maria #ourdes =. A. Sereno, and Estela M. =erlas/Bernabedissented. Acting Chief 7ustice Antonio T. Carpio, 7ustices =resbitero 7. elasco, 7r., Teresita 7. #eonardo/ %e Castro, and%iosdado M. =eralta too9 no part in the proceedings, 3hile 7ustice 7ose Catral Mendo@a 3as on official lea&e.

The Court held that although Section 5, Article : of the 2)4 Constitution pro&ides that the right of the State to reco&erproperties unla3fully ac


36/41

t thus concluded that the last day for filing the action >3as, at the latest, on (ebruary ), 22+, about four years after martialla3 ended.? (ebruary ), 22+ is + years from the date of registration 3ith the SEC by FC"M of the paid/up subscriptionof FC=B.

=etitioner had 9no3n of the in&estment it no3 =rescription of actions is a&alued rule in all ci&ili@ed states from the beginning of organi@ed society. t is a rule of fairness,? it added. !;.'.1221+, 'epublic of the =hilippines &. Couanco, Enrile et al, 7une *6, *+*$

SC Stos ecution of oraca! 9arina Proect9

Posted( .ul! 1+, 2012 ! Batrina / artineF

The Supreme Court En Banc has ordered the =ro&incial ;o&ernment of A9lan, the =hilippine 'eclamation Authority !='A$,and the %epartment of En&ironment and atural 'esources/En&ironmental Management Bureau 'egional "ffice !%E'/EMB '$ to >immediately cease and desist? from continuing the implementation of the reclamation proect in&ol&ing *.60hectares of foreshore and offshore areas in Barangay Caticlan and Boracay sland, 9no3n as the Boracay >Marina =roect.?n a 6)/page unanimous decision penned by 7ustice Teresita 7. #eonardo/%e Castro, the Supreme Court En Banc partiallygranted the petition for issuance of an En&ironmental =rotection "rder in the nature of a continuing mandamus underthe 'ules of =rocedure for En&ironmental Cases filed by the Boracay (oundation, nc., and con&erted the TemporaryEn&ironmental =rotection "rder it had issued on 7une 4, *+ into a 3rit of continuingmandamus ordering . respondent

%E'/EMB ' to re&isit and re&ie3H a. its classification of the reclamation proect as a single instead of a co/locatedproectD b. its appro&al of respondent =ro&ince of A9lan-s classification of the proects as a mere e8pansion of the e8isting ettyport in Caticlan, instead of classifying it as a ne3 proectD and c. the impact of the reclamation proect to the en&ironmentbased on ne3, updated, and comprehensi&e studies, 3hich should forth3ith be ordered by respondent %E'/EMB 'D *.respondent =ro&ince of A9lan to a. fully cooperate 3ith the %E'/EMB ' in its re&ie3 of the reclamation proect proposaland submit to the latter the appropriate report and studyD and b. secure appro&als from local go&ernment units and holdproper consultations 3ith non/go&ernmental organi@ations and other sta9eholders and sectors concerned as re


37/41

lac9 of comprehensi&e studies regarding the impact of the reclamation proects to the en&ironment put in


38/41

SC( .alosos Sta!s as Second &istrict amboan$a Sibu$a! Reresentati5e

Posted( .ul! 7, 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

'omeo M. 7alosos, 7r. 3ill stay as 'epresentati&e of the Second %istrict of Uamboanga Sibugay. 7alosos 3on and 3asdeclared 3inner as 'epresentati&e of the Second %istrict of Uamboanga Sibugay in the May *++ elections.

oting unanimously, the Supreme Court En Banc reiterated the demarcation line bet3een the urisdiction of the Commission

on Elections !C"ME#EC$ and the ouse of 'epresentati&es Electoral Tribunal !'ET$ as it granted the petition of 7alosos!;' o. 2*040$ to re&erse and set aside the C"ME#ECen banc-s 7une 1, *++ order that granted the motion forreconsideration of his ri&al %an Erasmo, Sr. and declared 7alosos ineligible to see9 election in his current post for failing tosatisfy the residency re


39/41

Subseother charges? to include the payment of building permits and locational clearance

fees as claimed by the Angeles Fni&ersity (oundation is improper because Sec. ) of 'A 6+55 is imposed by the ;o&ernment on all property used e8clusi&ely for the educational acti&ities of the foundation.? n effect,building fees are not impositions on property but instead are regulatory impositions on the acti&ity the go&ernmentregulates. A charge of a fi8ed sum is an e8ercise of police po3er if the purpose is primarily to regulate, e&en though re&enue isgenerated incidentally.

The Court also ruled that for e8emption from real property ta8 under Sec. *10!b$ of the #ocal ;o&ernment Code of 22 toapply, the real property must >actually, directly, and e8clusi&ely used for... educational purposes?.As clarified in #ung Center of the =hilippines &. Vue@on City, 3hat is meant by actual, direct, and e8clusi&e use of the propertyis direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purpose of 3hich the charitable institution isorgani@ed. The use of the income from the real property is not determinati&e for ta8 e8empt purposes. The Court foundAngeles Fni&ersity (oundation 3as not entitled to a refund for its payment of real property ta8 because it 3as not able topro&e that its real property is actually, directly, and e8clusi&ely used for educational purposes. t held that the land of AngelesFni&ersity (oundation 3as correctly assessed for real property ta8es for the ta8able period during 3hich the land is not beingde&oted soly for the latterRs educational acti&ities. !;' o. )2222, Angeles Fni&ersity &. City of Angeles, et. al., 7une *4,

*+*$

SC( President Can Aoint C. .C Can be Eeaded b! ost Senior .ustice

Posted( .ul! >, 2012 ! .a! / Remillo

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition


40/41

Citing Section 2, Article of the Constitution, the Court stressed that the Constitution pro&ides that >The members of theSupreme Court and the udges of lo3er courts shall be appointed by the =resident from a list of at least three nomineesprepared by the 7udicial and Bar Council for e&ery &acancy.?

A plain reading of the constitutional pro&isions on the 7udicial %epartment in Article of the 2)4 Constitution clearlysho3s that the phrase Members of the Supreme Court- and the 3ords Members- and Member- are repeatedly used to refer tothe 7ustices of the Supreme Court 3ithout distinction 3hether he be the Chief 7ustice or any of the Associate 7ustices or all

fifteen 7ustices,? ruled the Court in its se&en/page resolution.

The Court also held that it does not agree 3ith petition that the 7BC can only be headed by the incumbent Chief 7ustice andno other.

The Court e8plained that the 7BC-s principal function is to recommend appointees to the 7udiciary. (or e&ery &acancy, the7BC submits to the =resident a list of at least three nominees and the =resident may not appoint anybody 3ho is not in thelist. Any &acancy in the SC is re


41/41

Supreme Court News Flash

Documents

Transcript of Supreme Court News Flash