September 2017 - page 14

FACTS: Defendant Chinese national was deported to China and was allegedly threatened to be deported again when he came back to the Philippines. He filed for a preliminary injunction prohibiting plaintiffs from deporting him. Said injunction was issued by the Court of First Instance. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the political rights of aliens are protected by due process of law. HELD: NO. The political rights of aliens is not governed by that “due process of law” which governs in dealing with their civil rights. The certificate of admission is a mere license and may be revoked at any time. An…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Patricio Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. He has already retired from his office and has been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. In 1980, he filed for re-election for the same office. Meanwhile, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 was enacted, Section 4 of which disqualifies any retired elective provincial, city or municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years old at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected from running for the same elective local…

Keep Reading

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was charged with the crime of parricide for the death of his wife. The accused entered a plea of not guilty upon his arraignment and trial on the merits ensued. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the RTC erred in issuing the warrant of arrest without fixing the bail and without stating that evidence of guilt was strong. HELD: NO. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was authorized under paragraph (b), Section 6 of Rule 112. It was not required that since no bail was fixed in the warrant of arrest the court should state that the evidence of…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao suspended petitioner for gross misconduct after it found that the latter was partial to the Arriesgado Institute of Medical Sciences Foundation, Inc. (AIMSFI) school owners and acted against the interest of complaining students. Respondent did not comport himself in accordance with justness, sincerity and professionalism required by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officers and Employees (R.A. 6713). ISSUE(S): Whether or not Section 27 of R.A. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 is unconstitutional for their failure to provide for the right of appeal…

Keep Reading

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioners move for reconsideration/clarification of the Court’s April 24, 1985 decision affirming the necessity for publication of presidential decrees and issuances which are of general application. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the clause “unless it is otherwise provided” meant publication in the Official Gazette is not always imperative. HELD: NO. It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. Surely, if the legislature could validly…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On January 10, 1955, petitioner Emilio Suntay applied for and was granted a passport by the Department of Foreign Affairs. On January 20, 1955, he left the Philippines for San Francisco, California, U.S.A., where he is at present enrolled in school. The respondent Secretary on March 7, 1955 instructed the Ambassador to the United States to order the Consul General in San Francisco to cancel the passport issued to the petitioner and to compel him to return to the Philippines to answer the criminal charges against him. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the cancellation of the petitioner’s passport without hearing…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner Ortigas filed a complaint against the airline. After the issues were joined, a pre-trial was heard, the parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts and thereafter went to trial. Of the 24 times the case as set for hearing, it was postponed at least 10 times at the instance of the defendant. When the defendant’s witnesses failed to appear in court on September 28, 1966, the trial judge denied all motions for postponement and ordered the entire testimony of one of defendant’s witness stricken out on account that plaintiff’s counsel was not able to finish cross-examining said witness.…

Keep Reading

Keep Reading