Banco Espanyo v Palanca
action or to administer a particular kind of relief, or it may refer to the power
FACTS:
Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco mortgaged various parcels of
real property in Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino. Afterwards, Engracio
returned to China and there he died on January 29, 1810 without returning
again to the Philippines. The mortgagor then instituted foreclosure
proceeding but since defendant is a non-resident, it was necessary to give
notice by publication. The Clerk of Court was also directed to send copy of
the summons to the defendant’s last known address, which is in Amoy,
China. It is not shown whether the Clerk complied with this requirement.
Nevertheless, after publication in a newspaper of the City of Manila, the
cause proceeded and judgment by default was rendered. The decision was
likewise published and afterwards sale by public auction was held with the
bank as the highest bidder. On August 7, 1908, this sale was confirmed by
the court. However, about seven years after the confirmation of this sale, a
motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as administrator of the estate of the
original defendant, wherein the applicant requested the court to set aside
the order of default and the judgment, and to vacate all the proceedings
subsequent thereto. The basis of this application was that the order of
default and the judgment rendered thereon were void because the court
had never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of
the action.
ISSUE:
* Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant
and the subject matter of the action
* Whether or not due process of law was observed
RULING:
On Jurisdiction
The word “jurisdiction” is used in several different, though related, senses
since it may have reference
(1) to the authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of
of the court over the parties, or
(2) over the property which is the subject to the litigation.
The sovereign authority which organizes a court determines the nature and
extent of its powers in general and thus fixes its competency or jurisdiction
with reference to the actions which it may entertain and the relief it may
grant.
How Jurisdiction is Acquired
Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a
party in court and his submission to its authority, or it is acquired by the
coercive power of legal process exerted over the person.
Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result
either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is
brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the
institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the
power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. In
the latter case the property, though at all times within the potential power
of the court, may never be taken into actual custody at all. An illustration of
the jurisdiction acquired by actual seizure is found in attachment
proceedings, where the property is seized at the beginning of the action, or
some subsequent stage of its progress, and held to abide the final event of
the litigation. An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the
res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land under our system
for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical
control over the property assumes, at the instance of some person claiming
to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to
adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world.
In the terminology of American law the action to foreclose a mortgage is
said to be a proceeding quasi in rem, by which is expressed the idea that
while it is not strictly speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of that nature
and is substantially such. The expression "action in rem" is, in its narrow
application, used only with reference to certain proceedings in courts of
admiralty wherein the property alone is treated as responsible for the claim
or obligation upon which the proceedings are based. The action quasi rem
differs from the true action in rem in the circumstance that in the former an
individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of
the property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or
other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The judgment
entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.
It is true that in proceedings of this character, if the defendant for whom
publication is made appears, the action becomes as to him a personal action
and is conducted as such. This, however, does not affect the proposition that
where the defendant fails to appear the action is quasi in rem; and it should
therefore be considered with reference to the principles governing actions
in rem.
SC SIDED WITH PALANCA, requisites for judicial due process had been met.
The requisites are;
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial
power to hear and decide the matter before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings.
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.
ANG TIBA V CIR
GOLDBERG V KELLY
Facts. This case was brought by residents of New York City who received
financial aid under the federally assisted program of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) or under New York State’s Home Relief
Program. Their complaint alleged that City officials administering these
programs terminated such aid without prior notice and hearing, denying
them due process of law. After the suit was filed, the City adopted
procedures for notice and hearing, which the plaintiff-appellees then
challenged as constitutionally inadequate. The procedure allowed the
recipient to challenge the proposed termination of benefits within seven
days and submit a written statement for the reviewing official to make a
final determination. Appellees’ challenged the procedures’ lack of an
opportunity to personally appear before the reviewing officer for oral
testimony and cross-examination of adverse witnesses. The procedure did
allow for a post-termination “fair hearing,” however. The District Court held
that only a pre-termination hearing would satisfy the constitutional due
process requirement.
Issue. Does a State that terminates public assistance benefits to a particular
recipient without affording him an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing
prior to termination deny the recipient due process of law?
Held. Yes. Affirmed. Where welfare is concerned, only a pre-termination
evidentiary hearing provides the recipient with procedural due process. For
qualified recipients, welfare provides the only means to obtain essential
food, clothing, housing and medical care. The crucial factor is that the
termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy might deprive an
eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits. Dissent.
No provision in the Constitution should paralyze the government’s efforts
to protect itself against making payments to people who are not entitled to
them. There are large numbers of undeserving welfare recipients, and States
should be able to fight back against them. Concurrence. None.
Discussion. The interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of
public assistance, coupled with the State’s interest that payments not be
erroneously terminated, clearly outweigh the State’s competing interest to
prevent administrative and fiscal burdens. The pre-termination hearing
need not take the form of a judicial or quasi- judicial trial, as the “fair
hearing” will afford full administrative review later on. It need only produce
an initial determination that the welfare’s grounds for termination of reversed and remanded.
benefits are valid.
Agabon v. NLRC
BOARD OF REGENTS V ROTH FACTS:
Syllabus
Petitioners were employed by Riviera Home as gypsum board and cornice
Respondent, hired for a fixed term of one academic year to teach at a state installers from January 1992 to February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed
university, was informed without explanation that he would not be rehired for abandonment of work. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
for the ensuing year. A statute provided that all state university teachers and was decided in their favor by the Labor Arbiter. Riviera appealed to the
would be employed initially on probation, and that only after four years' NLRC contending just cause for the dismissal because of petitioner’s
continuous service would teachers achieve permanent employment "during abandonment of work. NLRC ruled there was just cause and petitioners
efficiency and good behavior," with procedural protection against were not entitled to backwages and separation pay. The CA in turn ruled
separation. University rules gave a nontenured teacher "dismissed" before that the dismissal was not illegal because they have abandoned their work
the end of the year some opportunity for review of the "dismissal," but but ordered the payment of money claims.
provided that no reason need be given for nonretention of a nontenured
teacher, and no standards were specified for reemployment. Respondent ISSUE:
brought this action claiming deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment
rights, alleging infringement of (1) his free speech right because the true Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.
reason for his nonretention was his criticism of the university
administration, and (2) his procedural due process right because of the RULING:
university's failure to advise him of the reason for its decision. The District
Court granted summary judgment for the respondent on the procedural To dismiss an employee, the law required not only the existence of a just
issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed. and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the right
to be heard and to defend himself. Abandonment is the deliberate and
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require opportunity for a
unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. For a valid
hearing prior to the nonrenewal of a nontenured state teacher's contract
finding or abandonment, two factors are considered: failure to report for
unless he can show that the nonrenewal deprived him of an interest in
work without a valid reason; and, a clear intention to sever employer-
"liberty" or that he had a "property" interest in continued employment,
employee relationship with the second as the more determinative factor
despite the lack of tenure or a formal contract. Here, the nonretention of
which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the
respondent, absent any charges against him or stigma or disability
employees has no more intention to work.
foreclosing other employment, is not tantamount to a deprivation of
"liberty," and the terms of respondent's employment accorded him no
Where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not
"property" interest protected by procedural due process. The courts below
follow the due process requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the
therefore erred in granting summary judgment for the respondent on the
employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. This
procedural due process issue.
became known as the Wenphil Doctrine of the Belated Due process Rule.
Art. 279 means that the termination is illegal if it is not for any of the
justifiable or authorized by law. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the
lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal but the
employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory
rights. The indemnity should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice
of “dismiss now, pay later” which we sought to deter in Serrano ruling. The
violation of employees’ rights warrants the payment of nominal damages.