Peoples Homesite and Housing vs Hon Ericta GR No.

L-40675

Facts:

Respondent judge issued an order for a writ of execution of absolute sale to the
petitioner in favor of the plaintiff but herein petitioner contested the decision
asserting that the decision that should be executed is the one stated in the
decretal or dispositive portion of the case.

Issue: Whether or not judgment can only be found in the decretal portion of the
decision.

Held:
The decision is found in the dispositive portion but there are instances that the it
is embodied in other parts of the case as the style of the ponente varies. The
court cannot implement a stringent rule as to how the ponente may write a
decision as long as the Rules of Court is not violated.

Velarde v SJS GR No. 159357

Facts:
SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief to seek the interpretation of several
constitutional provisions, specifically on the separation of church and state; and a
declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders
endorsing a candidate for an elective office. The petitioner filed a Motion to
dismiss before the trial court owing to the fact that alleged that the questioned
SJS Petition did not state a cause of action and that there was no justiciable
controversy. The trial courts junked the Velarde petitions but its essay did not
contain a statement of facts and a dispositive portion.

Issues:

WON the RTC Decision conforms to the form and substance required by the
Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court

WON religious leaders be prohibited from endorsing candidates for public office

Held:
NO. The Constitution commands that no decision shall be rendered by
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based.

It is not legally possible to take up, on the merits. It is a time-honored rule

that the constitutionality of a statute will be passed upon only if it is directly and
necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to the protection
of the rights of the parties concerned.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991)

F:
The Kitty Kat Lounge, Inc. and Glen Theatre, Inc. operated adult entertainment
establishments in South Bend, Indiana. The Kitty Kat was a club that sold
alcoholic beverages in addition to employing live female exotic dancers to
entertain its patrons. Glen Theatre was primarily in the business of selling adult
entertainment materials and had an enclosed "bookstore" area where customers
could insert coins into a machine, which would allow them to view live female
exotic dancers. Both businesses sought to include fully nude dancers to their
entertainment lineup, but were prevented by an Indiana statute regulating
"indecent behavior."

I: Whether or not the Indiana statue violates the right to expressive conduct
H:
It was not unconstitutional for a state to enact such legislation, particularly if the
only requirement for a person to no longer be considered "nude" was wearing
some of the most revealing possible clothing. Public nudity is the evil the state
seeks to prevent, whether or not it is combined with expressive activity

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)

Facts:
An ordinance was passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the unnecessary
killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary
purpose of food consumption. The law was enacted soon after the city council
of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced
Santera, was planning on locating there.
Santeria is a religion practiced in the Americas by the descendants of
Africans; many of its rituals involve animal sacrifice.

Issue:
Whether or not the city ordinance violates the Free Exercise Clause

Held:
The city ordinance violates the Free Exercise Clause. If the object of the law is to
restrict upon practices because of their religious motivation, the law is not
neutral unless it is justified by a compelling interest. The First Amendment looks
to the effects of the laws enacted, not the purposes for which they are enacted.
Ruiz v Ucol GR No. L-45404

F: The petitioners laundrywoman filed an administrative complaint against the

respondent who alleged that the petitioner is using the laundrywoman in
retaliation for the charges filed by the respondent against petitioner. The case
was dismissed by the court. The petitioner filed a case of libel against the
respondent which was likewise dismissed. The petitioner again filed for damages
based on the information in the case of libel which the court dismissed on
grounds of res judicata. On one hand, Ucol files an appeal for certiorari
questioning the dissenting opinion of the CA.

I: WON an appeal may be filed questioning a courts dissenting opinion

R: It would be elementary to know that a dissenting opinion is not the decision

of the case. What is subject to appeal or a special civil action would be the
majority opinion of the court.

Nolasco v Pano GR No. L-69803

Facts:
Aguilar-Roque was one of the accused of rebellion in a criminal case before a
Special Military Commission. At that time, she was at large. The military
authorities arrested her and Nolasco, who had no standing arrest against him,
while the latter was onboard a public vehicle. Consequently, the military
authorities searched the residence of Aguilar-Roque. They seized 428 documents
and written materials, and additionally a portable typewriter, and 2 wooden
boxes.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure fall under the rule of warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest
HELD: Yes, the search and seizure fall under the rule of warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest. Considering that Aguilar-Roque has been charged
with rebellion and that she was arrested within the general vicinity of her
dwelling. the search and seizure conducted did not need a search warrant.

Tolentino v Ongsiako GR No. L-17938

Facts:
Appellant is the successor of interest in behalf of the late Severino
Domingo who has a case against Ongsiako. It took 20 years before he came to
know about the decision of the case, prompting him to file a complaint for the
enforcement of the dissenting opinion of the case and asserting erroneous
decision of the court.

Issues:
WON an action for the enforcement of a dissenting opinion may be filed before
the court.
WON the court should act before the complaint on erroneous decision of the
court.

Held:
No. A dissenting opinion merits no right or claim as it is just merely a dissent
from the majority decision of the case.Appellant is barred from assailing the
decision of the court by res judicata and the decision has already been final and
executory already.

People v Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401

Facts:
Accused is a Swedish national arrested for carrying Hashish, a form of marijuana
during a NARCOM inspection. He was tried and found guilty in violation of
Dangerous Drugs Act. He contends that the arrest was illegal without the search
warrant.

I: WON the arrest made was illegal in the absence of a search warrant.

R: NARCOM operation was conducted with a probable cause for a warrantless

search upon information that prohibited drugs are in the possession of the
accused and he failed to immediately present his passport.
A warrantless arrest may be lawfully made:
(a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.

Recuerdo v People GR. No. 133036

F: Petitoner was found guilty in violation of BP 22 where out of the 9 checks she
issued as payment for the jewelry she bought from Yolanda Floro, 5 were
dishonored by the bank. A demand letter was sent to her and upon failure to
make payments, a complaint was filed by which she was found guilty. On
petition for certiorari, she contends that BP 22 is unconstitutional

I: WON BP 22 is unconstitutional

R: The court upheld the constitutionality of BP 22 citing the landmark case of

Lozano v Martinez where it was held that BP 22 punishes the act of making and
issuing worthless checks. It is not the non-payment of debt or obligation which
the law punishes and the law does not coerce the debtor to pay debt but the
main objective of the law is the prohibition and penalizing the making of
worthless checks and putting them in circulation.

Villaber v COMELEC GR No. 148326

F: Petitioner was disqualified upon the petition of his rival candidate for
disqualification on grounds of his previous conviction in violation of BP 22
(bouncing check law) which constitutes moral turpitude, a ground for
disqualification for electoral candidacy under the Omnibus Election Code.

I: WON a violation of BP 22 constitutes a disqualification for electoral candidacy

Held:

The presence of the 2nd element in violation of BP22, which relates to the
knowledge of the accused at the time of the issuance that there is insufficient
fund for payment of the same, represents moral turpitude as stated in the ruling
of People v Atty. Fe Tuanda. This involves deceit and affects the good moral
character of a person.
Asufrin v San Miguel GR No. 15658

Facts:
The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after respondent fails to
include him among the employees who signify their willingness to be absorbed
by the company after its announcement for retrenchment of their workers on
ground of redundancy. Apparently, respondent gave their employees the choice
to avail of the early retirement package. Despite his manifestation of his
willingness to be demoted to any position as long as the company retains him,
he was still dismissed from work.

I: WON there is an illegal dismissal of the petitioner from employment

HEld: The court held that based on the leading case of Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v.
NLRC, the nature of redundancy is an authorized cause for dismissal wherein
there is duplication of work of employees. However, due to the failure of the
respondent to give justifiable cause, the decision of the CA was set aside,
ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with full backwages.

Philippine Export v Philippine Infrastructures GR No. 120384

Facts:

The case involves a collection of sum of money by the petitioner from the
respondent by virtue of their Deed of Undertaking where petitioner stands as a
guarantor. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of cause of action
since it does not allege that petitioner has suffered any damage. Subsequently
petitioner filed a Motion to Amend Complaint to Conform to Evidence.

I: WON the complaint should be dismissed due to lack of cause of action

Held:
Although the complaint did not allege that the actual loss, the complaint
emanates from the obligation of the respondent to indemnify the petitioner by
virtue of their Deed of Undertaking. There was no need for petitioner to first
sustain actual loss before it could have a cause of action.

El Pueblo Filipinas v Marcaida GR No. L-953

F: Respondent was allegedly helping Japanese occupants in arresting Filipinos

thought to be guerillas. He contends that he should not be tried by the court on
account that his nationality and citizenship are undetermined, citing previous
cases under the doctrine of stare decisis where a limitation on the application of
jus soli for citizenship was established.

I: Whether stare decisis is applicable at the case at bar

R: No. The doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to the extent of perpetuating
an error. The doctrine stands to be corrected once it was found out that a
previous judgment was erroneous.

Relampagos v Cumba GR No. 117040

Facts: Both parties were mayoralty candidates, with Cumba declared as the
winner. Relampagos appealed and the court declared him as a winner, When
Cumba appealed, the court referred the case to the Comelec. Meanwhile,
Relampagos filed motion for execution pending appeal. In its resolution, the
Comelec resolved to declare the courts grant for execution be lifted by virtue of
its authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus in election cases.

I: WON Comelec has the appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus involving election cases

R: The court pointed out that the previous ruling on Garcia v Uy, the comelec
was found to have no jurisdiction over the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition, andmandamus because there is no specific constitutional or statutory
conferment to it of such jurisdiction. But the Comelec stated that Section 50 of
B.P. Blg. 697 expressly granted it such jurisdiction which the court finds to be
correct as there is no expressed repeal of the said provision. The court thereby
abandons said ruling from the Garcia v Uy.Moreover, the court points out that
the petitioner made an appeal after which the court already divested its
jurisdiction over the case to the comelec.

Serrano v NLRC GR No. 117040

F: Isettan filed a motion for reconsideration after it was ordered to pay petitioner
full backwages from the day of its termination from work until it is determined
that he has been terminated for an authorized cause. The Labor Arbiter decision
that Serrano was illegally dismissed and ordered to be reinstated was reversed
by the NLRC on ground that he was dismissed by authorized causes which
does not requires the 30 day notice.

I; WON the labor law requirement of giving 30 days notice prior to termination
may be offset to giving 30 days pay

Held: Art. 283 of the Labor Code intends that the 30 day notice is mandatory. It
is not for private respondent to make substitutions for a right that a worker is
legally entitled to.

--

Vitarich v NLRC GR No. 121905

F: Vitarich terminated Recodo for failure to comply with the memo issued upon
him involving issues on company policies on credit transactions and cash
advances. The Labor Arbiter finds Recodo was illegally dismissed but his findings
were set aside by the NLRC ruling otherwise. Upon appeal of Recodo, the NLRC
reversed its decision admitting some flaws on its decision.

I; WON NLRC abused its discretionary power.

R: The court held that although there is truth in the delayed implementation of
the memo order to Recodo, such delay does not constitute disobedience to merit
the cause of his termination on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. There
must be sufficient grounds that the employer must prove when terminating its
employees.

Astraquillo v Javier 13 SCRA 125

F: The trial court decide in favor of the respondent declaring the real estate
mortgage void and ordered the petitioners to pay respondents with unpaid
rentals and damages. The appeal of the petitioners was assailed by the
respondent on the ground that it was incomplete and defective.

Petitioner questioned the validity of the decision of CA on reversing its

decision when the respondents did not raise any new issues.

I: WON the CA erred in reversing its decision

R: No. Courts have the power to amend and control its orders and processes to
make them conform to law and justice. The SC finds no grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the CA to uphold the writ of execution decided upon by the lower
court.

Cayana v CA GR No. 125607

F: It appears that the petitioners and respondents father, with the marital
consent of the latters wife, sold two parcels of land to their son. At the death of
the father, the mother filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claims pertaining to the two
parcels of land, alleging that the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of their son
were forgeries. However, she withdrew the same. Later on, together with
petitioners of this case and respondent Marceliano, they filed a case against
respondent Pastor, for the cancellation of the Deed of Absolute Sale and
reconveyance of the two parcels of land. Meanwhile, respondent Pastor entered
into an agreement of counter guaranty with respondent corporation using second
parcel of land and sold the first parcel of land to a certain Rosafina Reginaldo.
The court decided the civil case in favor of petitioners.

I: Whether or not the decision on the first civil case constitutes a bar to the
defenses and claims of respondents in the second case

R: Both the trial court and CA misread the provisions on the effect of judgments
or final orders as given by Rules of Civil Procedure. Res judicata and the bar of
prior judgment are not applicable to this case since the requisites for these two
to apply are not present.

Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice 301 SCRA 96,

Facts: On January 4, 1999, the SC issued a TRO staying the execution of
petitioner Leo Echegaray scheduled on that same day. The public respondent
Justice Secretary assailed the issuance of the TRO arguing that the action of the
SC not only violated the rule on finality of judgment but also encroached on the
power of the executive to grant reprieve.

Issue: Whether or not the SC, after the decision in the case becomes final and
executory, still has jurisdiction over the case

Held: The finality of judgment does not mean that the SC has lost all its powers
or the case. What the SC loses is its authority to amend, modify or alter the
decision, but not its jurisdiction to execute the same.

20th Century Fox v CA 164 SCRA 655

F: Petitioner sought the help of the NBI in connection with its anti-piracy
campaign alleging that some videotape outlets are engaged in marketing
copyrighted films in violation of PD 449. A search warrant was issued to
the NBI but was later withdrawn due to lack of probable cause.

I: WON the court erred in lifting the search warrant due to lack of probable
cause.

R: Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution provides that no search warrant

shall be issued without probable cause. There was no probable cause
since the agents have no personal knowledge of such fact.

Columbia Pictures v CA 261 SCRA 144

F: Acting upon a violation of PD 449, NBI agents surveyed different video

establishments in Metro Manila. Search and seizure of copyrighted
materials were taken by the NBI. A motion to lift search warrant was filed
but was denied by the court. On motion for reconsideration, the court
upheld the motion to lift on grounds that no original copy of the films were
presented, citing the case of 20th Century Fox vs CA.

I: WON the ruling on the cited case applicable in the case at bar.

R: No, it does not apply because decisions must be applied prospectively.

The ruling in the 20th Century Fox only serves as a guidepost and not
absolute since it is not always necessary to present the original tapes
before ascertaining probable cause.