LEGAL PHILOSOPHY – ATTY. ATTY. JACOME – CASE DIGESTS I. WHAT IS LAW? SANDIDAD vs. COMELEC FACTS: On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for the iti!ens "ssem#lies $%#aranga&s'( to resol)e, among other things, the issues of martial la*, the interim assem#l&, its replacement, the po*ers of such replacement, the period of its e+istence, the length of the period for the e+ercise #& the President of his present po*ers. *ent& *ent& da&s after, the President President issued another related decree, PD No. 1-1, amending the pre)ious PD No. 991, #& declaring the pro)isions of PD No. 229 pro)iding for the manner of )oting and can)ass of )otes in %#aranga&s' applica#le to the national referendum/ple#iscite referendum/ple#iscite of Oct 16, 1976. 0uite rele)antl&, PD No. 1-1 repealed inter alia, Sec , of PD No. 991. On the same date of 22 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 1-, stating the uestions to he su#mitted to the people in the referendum/ple#iscite on Octo#er 16, 1976. he Decree recites in its %*hereas' clauses that the people3s continued opposition to the con)ening of the interim National "ssem#l& "ssem#l& e)inces their desire to ha)e such #od& a#olished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, pro)iding for a ne* interim legislati)e #od&, *hich *ill #e su#mitted directl& to the people in the referendum/ple#iscite referendum/ple#iscite of Octo#er 16. On Septem#er 27, 1976, Sanidad filed a Prohi#ition *ith Preliminar& 4n5unction seeing to en5oin the ommission on lections from holding and conducting the 8eferendum Ple#iscite on Octo#er 16 to declare *ithout force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1-, insofar as the& propose amendments to the onstitution, as *ell as Presidential Decree No. 1-1, insofar as it directs the ommis ommissio sion n on lect lection ionss to super) super)ise ise,, contro control, l, hold, hold, and conduc conductt the 8efere 8eferendu ndum/P m/Ple# le#isc iscite ite schedu scheduled led on Octo#e Octo#err 16, 1976.Petitioners contend that under the 19: and 197 onstitutions there is no grant to the incum#ent President to e+ercise the constituent po*er to propose amendments to the ne* onstitution. "s a conseuence, the 8eferendum/Ple#iscite on Octo#er 16 has no constitutional or legal #asis. he Soc/;en contended that the uestion is political in nature hence the court cannot tae cogni!ance of it. ISSUE: nder the terms of the 197 onstitution, the po*er to propose amendments to the onstitution resides in the interim National "ssem#l& during the period of transition $Sec. 1:, ransitor& Pro)isions(. "fter that period, and the regular National "ssem#l& in its acti)e session, the po*er to propose amendments #ecomes ipso facto the prerogati)e of the regular National "ssem#l& $Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2 of "rt. ?@4, 197 onstitution(. onstitution(. he normal course has not #een follo*ed. 8ather than calling the interim National "ssem#l& to constitute itself into a constituent assem#l&, the incum#ent President undertoo the proposal of amendments and su#mitted the proposed amendments thru Presidential Decree 1- to the people in a 8eferendum/Ple#iscite on Octo#er 16. >na)oida#l&, >na)oida#l&, the regularit& of the procedure for amendments, *ritten in lam#ent *ords in the )er& onstitution sought to #e amended, raises a contesta#le issue. he he implementing Presidential Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1-1, and 1-, *hich commonl& purport to ha)e the force and effect of legislation are assailed as in)alid, thus the issue of the )alidit& of said Decrees is plainl& a 5usticia#le one, *ithin the competence of this ourt to pass upon. Section 2 $2( "rticle ? of the ne* onstitution pro)idesA %"ll cases in)ol)ing the constitutionalit& of a treat&, e+ecuti)e agreement, or la* shall #e heard and decided #& the Supreme ourt en #anc and no treat&, e+ecuti)e agreement, or la* ma& #e declared unconstitutional *ithout *ithout the concurrence of at least ten Mem#ersB' he Supreme ourt has the last *ord in the construction construction not onl& of treaties and statutes, #ut also of the onstitution onstitution itself. he amending, lie all other other po*ers organi!ed in the onstitution, onstitution, is in form a delegated and hence a limited po*er, so that the Supreme ourt is )ested *ith that authorit& to determine *hether that po*er has #een discharged *ithin its limits. his petition is ho*e)er dismissed. he President can propose amendments to the onstitution and he *as a#le to present those proposals to the the people in sufficient sufficient time. time. he President President at that that time also sits as the legislature. legislature. THE UNITED KINGDOM vs. ALBANIA (THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE) F!"s:On Ma& 1:th. 196 the Critish *arships passed through the hannel *ithout the appro)al of the "l#anian go)ernment and *ere shot at. ater, on Octo#er 22nd, 196, a suadron of Critish *arships $t*o cruisers and t*o destro&ers(, left the port of orfu and proceeded north*ard north*ard through a channel channel pre)iousl& s*ept s*ept for mines in the North orfu orfu Strait. Strait. Coth destro&ers *ere struc #& mine and *ere hea)il& damaged. his incident resulted also in man& deaths. he t*o ships *ere mined in "l#anian territorial territorial *aters in a pre)iousl& s*ept and chec/s*ept channel. "fter the e+plosions of Octo#er 22nd, the >nited Eingdom ;o)ernment sent a note to the "l#anian ;o)ernment, in *hich it announced its intention to s*eep the orfu hannel shortl&. shortl&. he "l#anian "l#anian repl&, *hich *as recei)ed in ondon on Octo#er 1st, stated that the "l#anian ;o)ernment *ould not gi)e its consent to this unless the operation in uestion too place outside "l#anian territorial *aters. *aters. Mean*hile, at the >nited Eingdom ;o)ernmentFs reuest, the 4nternational entral Mine learance Coard decided, in a resolution of No)em#er 1st, 196, that there should #e a further s*eep of the hannel, su#5ect to "l#aniaFs "l#aniaFs consent. he >nited Eingdom ;o)ernment ha)ing informed the "l#anian ;o)ernment, in a communication of No)em#er 1-th, that the proposed s*eep *ould tae place on No)em#er 12th, the "l#anian ;o)ernment replied on the 11th, protesting against this Funilateral decision of Gis Ma5est&Fs ;o)ernmentF. ;o)ernmentF. 4t said it did not consider it incon)enient that the Critish fleet fleet should undertae the s*eeping of the channel of
na)igation, #ut added that, #efore s*eeping *as carried out, it considered it indispensa#le to decide *hat area of the sea should #e deemed to constitute this channel, and proposed the esta#lishment of a Mi+ed ommission for the purpose. 4t ended #& sa&ing that an& s*eeping undertaen *ithout the consent of the "l#anian ;o)ernment outside the channel thus constituted, i.e., inside "l#anian territorial *aters *here foreign *arships ha)e no reason to sail, could onl& #e considered as a deli#erate )iolation of "l#anian territor& and so)ereignt&. "fter this e+change of notes, FOperation 8etailF too place on No)em#er 12th and 1th. One fact of particular importance is that the North orfu hannel constitutes a frontier #et*een "l#ania and ;reece, that a part of it is *holl& *ithin the territorial *aters of these States, and that the Strait is of special importance to ;reece #& reason of the traffic to and from the port of orfu. Iss#$s: he Critish go)ernment claimed the minefield *hich caused the e+plosions *as laid #et*een Ma& 1:th, 196, and Octo#er 22nd, 196, #& or *ith the appro)al or no*ledge of the "l#anian ;o)ernment. hus "l#ania *as responsi#le for the e+plosions and loss of life and had to compensate the >E go)ernment. 4n addition to the passage of the >nited Eingdom *arships on Octo#er 22nd, 196, the second uestion in the Special "greement relates to the acts of the 8o&al Na)& in "l#anian *aters on No)em#er 12th and 1th, 196 *hen the Critish go)ernment carried out a mines*eeping operation called FOperation 8etailF *ithout the consent of "l#ania. >E held the opinion the passage on Octo#er 22nd, 196 *as innocent and that according to rules of international la* it had the right to innocent passage through the North orfu hannel as it is considered part of international high*a&s and does not need a pre)ious appro)al of the territorial state.
he "l#anian ;o)ernment does not dispute that the North orfu hannel is a strait in the geographical sense #ut it denies that this hannel #elongs to the class of international high*a&s through *hich a right of passage e+ists, on the grounds that it is onl& of secondar& importance and not e)en a necessar& route #et*een t*o parts of the high seas, and that it is used almost e+clusi)el& for local traffic to and from the ports of orfu. hus a pre)ious appro)al of the territorial state is necessar&. 1( Should the North orfu hannel as it is considered part of international high*a&sH 2( 4s "l#ania responsi#le under international la* for the e+plosions *hich occurred on the 22nd Octo#er 196 in "l#anian *aters and for the damage and loss of human life *hich resulted from them and is there an& dut& to pa & compensationHF A%&'ss: he court anal&ses the geographical situation of the channel connects t*o parts of the high seas and is in fact freuentl& #eing used for international na)igation. aing into account these )arious considerations, the ourt concludes that the North orfu hannel should #e considered as #elonging to the class of international high*a&s through *hich an innocent passage does not need special approval and cannot be prohibited by a coastal State in time of peace.
he >E go)ernment claims that on Octo#er 22nd, 196, "l#ania neither notified the e+istence of the minefield, nor *arned the Critish *arships of the danger the& *ere approaching. "ccording to the principle of state responsi#ilit&, the& should ha)e done all necessar& steps immediatel& to *arn ships near the danger !one, more especiall& those that *ere approaching that ! one. 4n fact, nothing *as attempted #& the "l#anian authorities to pre)ent the disaster. hese gra)e omissions in)ol)e the international responsi#ilit& of "l#ania. Cut "l#aniaFs o#ligation to notif& shipping of the e+istence of mines in her *aters depends on her ha)ing o#tained no*ledge of that fact in sufficient time #efore Octo#er 22nd and the dut& of the "l#anian coastal authorities to *arn the Critish ships depends on the time that elapsed #et*een the moment that these ships *ere reported and the moment of the first e+plosion. C%!&#s% * "+$ !#,": he ourt therefore reaches the conclusion that "l#ania is responsi#le under international la* for the e+plosions *hich occurred on Octo#er 22nd, 196, in "l#anian *aters, and for the damage and loss of human life *hich resulted from them, and that there is a dut& upon "l#ania to pa& compensation to the >nited Eingdom.
4n the second part of the Special "greement, the follo*ing uestion is su#mitted to the ourtA $2( Gas the >nited Eingdom under international la* )iolated the so)ereignt& of the "l#anian PeopleFs 8epu#lic #& reason of the acts of the 8o&al Na)& in "l#anian *aters on the 22nd Octo#er and on the 12th and 1th No)em#er 196 and is there an& dut& to gi)e satisfactionH "l#ania *as in fact in *ar *ith ;reece *hich means that the coastal state *as not in time of peace. >E had not an innocent passage due to the *a& it *as carried out. he court assessed the manner of >E *arships after the& had #een shot at Ma& 1: th. Ga)ing thus e+amined the )arious contentions of the "l#anian ;o)ernment in so far as the& appear to #e rele)ant, the ourt has arri)ed at the conclusion that the >nited Eingdom did not )iolate the so)ereignt& of "l#ania #& reason of the acts of the Critish Na)& in "l#anian *aters on Octo#er 22nd, 196. he >nited Eingdom ;o)ernment does not dispute that FOperation 8etailF *as carried out against the clearl& e+pressed *ish of the "l#anian ;o)ernment. 4t recogni!es that the operation had not the consent of the international mine clearance organi!ations, that it could not #e 5ustified as the e+ercise of a right of innocent passage, and lastl& that, in principle, international la* does not allo* a State to assem#le a large num#er of *arships in the territorial *aters of another State and to carr& out mines*eeping in those *aters.
he >nited Eingdom ;o)ernment states that the operation *as one of e+treme urgenc&, and that it considered itself entitled to carr& it out *ithout an&#od&Fs consent. he ourt can onl& regard the alleged right of inter)ention as the manifestation of a polic& of force, such as has, in the past, gi)en rise to most serious a#uses and such as cannot, *hate)er #e the present defects in international organi!ation, he >nited Eingdom "gent, in his speech in repl&, has further classified FOperation 8etailF among methods of self/protection or self/help. he ourt cannot accept this defense either find a place in international la*. F%& !%!&#s% * "+$ !#,": 1( On the first uestion put #& the Special "greement of March 2:th, 19I,
he court gi)es 5udgment that the PeopleFs 8epu#lic of "l#ania is responsi#le under international la* for the e+plosions *hich occurred on Octo#er 22nd, 196, in "l#anian *aters, and for the damage and loss of human life that resulted there from and 8eser)es for further consideration the assessment of the amount of compensation and regulates the procedure on this su#5ect. 2( On the second uestion put #& the Special "greement on the )iolation of state so)ereignt&, he court gi)es 5udgment that the >nited Eingdom did not )iolate the so)ereignt& of the PeopleFs 8epu#lic of "l#ania #& reason of the acts of the Critish Na)& in "l#anian *aters on Octo#er 22nd, 196 and unanimousl&, gi)es 5udgment that #& reason of the acts of the Critish Na)& in "l#anian *aters in the course of the Operation of No)em#er 12th and 1th, 196, the >nited Eingdom )iolated the so)ereignt& of the PeopleFs 8epu#lic of "l#ania, and that this declaration #& the ourt constitutes in itself appropriate satisfaction.
MARBURRY vs. MADISON B,$* F!" S#--,'. nited States $Supreme ourt( has constitutional authorit& to re)ie* e+ecuti)e actions and legislati)e acts. he Supreme ourt has limited 5urisdiction, the #ounds of *hich are set #& the >nited States onstitution $onstitution(, *hich ma& not #e enlarged #& the ongress. F!"s. Cefore the inauguration of President Jefferson, outgoing President "dams attempted to secure Kederalist control of the 5udiciar& #& creating ne* 5udgeships and filling them *ith Kederalist appointees. 4ncluded in these efforts *as the nomination #& President "dams, under the Organic "ct of the District of olum#ia $the District(, of 2 ne* 5ustices of the peace for the District, *hich *ere confirmed #& the Senate the da& #efore President Jefferson3s inauguration. " fe* of the commissions, including Mar#ur&3s, *ere undeli)ered *hen President Jefferson too office. he ne* president instructed Secretar& of State James Madison to *ithhold deli)er& of the commissions. Mar#ur& sought mandamus in the Supreme ourt, reuiring James Madison to deli)er his commission. Iss#$. 4s Mar#ur& entitled to mandamus from the Supreme ourtH H$&0. No. ase dismissed for *ant of 5urisdiction. "s the President signed Mar#ur&3s commission after his confirmation, the appointment has #een made, and Mar#ur& has a right to the commission gi)en that the la* imposed a dut& on the office of the president to deli)er Mar#ur&3s commission, that the Supreme ourt has the po*er to re)ie* e+ecuti)e actions *hen the e+ecuti)e acts as an officer of the la* and the nature of the *rit of mandamus to direct an officer of the go)ernment %to do a particular thing therein specified,' mandamus is the appropriate remed&, if a)aila#le to the Supreme ourt. o issue mandamus to the Secretar& of State reall& is to sustain an original action, *hich is $in this case( outside the constitutional limits of 5urisdiction imposed on the Supreme ourt. Ds!#ss%. he importance of Mar#ur& ). Madison is #oth political and legal. "lthough the case esta#lishes the traditions of 5udicial re)ie* and a litiga#le constitution on *hich the remainder of constitutional la* rests, it also transformed the Supreme ourt from an incongruous institution to an euipotent head of a #ranch of the federal go)ernment. PEOPLE vs. POMAR F!"s: Macaria Ka5ardo *as an emplo&ee of a Klor de la 4sa#ela, a o#acco factor&. She *as granted a )acation lea)e, #& reason of her pregnanc&, *hich commenced on the 16th of Jul& 192. "ccording to Ka5ardo, during that time, she *as not gi)en the salar& due her in )iolation of the pro)isions of "ct No. -71. Ka5ardo filed a criminal complaint #ased on Section 1 and 1: of said "ct against the manager of the to#acco Kactor&, Julio Pomar, herein defendant. he latter, on the other hand, claims that the facts in the complaint did not constitute an offense and further alleges that the aforementioned pro)isions of "ct No. -71 *as unconstitutional. Section 1, "ct No. -71 pro)ides that, %)er& person, firm or corporation o*ning or managing a factor&, shop or place of la#or of an& description shall #e o#liged to grant to an& *oman emplo&ed #& it as la#orer *ho ma& #e pregnant, thirt& da&s )acation *ith pa& #efore and another thirt& da&s after confinementA Pro)ided, hat the emplo&er shall not discharge such la#orer *ithout 5ust cause,
under the penalt& of #eing reuired to pa& to her *ages eui)alent to the total of t*o months counting from the da& of her discharge.' Section 1: of the same "ct pro)ides for the penalt& of an& )iolation of section 1. he latter *as enacted #& the legislature in the e+ercise of its supposed Police Po*er *ith the purpose of safeguarding the health of pregnant *omen la#orers in Lfactor&, shop or place of la#or of an& description,L and of insuring to them, to a certain e+tent, reasona#le support for one month #efore and one month after their deli)er&. he trial court rendered a decision in fa)or of plaintiff, sentencing the defendant to pa& the fine of fift& pesos and in case of insol)enc&, to suffer su#sidiar& imprisonment. Gence, the case *as raised to the ourt of "ppeals *hich affirmed the former decision. Iss#$:
he police po*er of the state is a )er& #road and e+panding po*er. he police po*er ma& encompass e)er& la* for the restraint and punishment of crimes, for the preser)ation of the pu#lic peace, health, and morals. Cut that po*er cannot gro* faster than the fundamental la* of the state, nor transcend or )iolate the e+press inhi#ition of the constitution. he Police Po*er is su#5ect to and is controlled #& the paramount authorit& of the constitution of the state, and *ill not #e permitted to )iolate rights secured or guaranteed #& the latter. DEL MONTE CORP. vs. CA FACTS: Petitioner Del Monte orporation $Del Monte(, through its local distri#utor and manufacturer, PhilPac filed an infringement of cop&right complaint against respondent Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing 4ndustries $SSM4(, also a maer of catsup and other itchen sauces. 4n its complaint, Del Monte alleged that SSM4 are using #ottles and logos identical to the petitioner, to *hich is decei)ing and misleading to the pu#lic.
4n its ans*er, Sunshine alleged that it had ceased to use the Del Monte #ottle and that its logo *as su#stantiall& different from the Del Monte logo and *ould not confuse the #u&ing pu#lic to the detriment of the petitioners. he 8egional rial ourt of Maati dismissed the complaint. 4t held that there *ere su#stantial differences #et*een the logos or trademars of the parties nor on the continued use of Del Monte #ottles. he decision *as affirmed in toto #& the ourt of "ppeals. ISSUEA
he ourt is agreed that are indeed distinctions, #ut similarities holds a greater *eight in this case. he Sunshine la#el is a colora#le imitation of the Del Monte trademar.
K"SA San Miguel orp. $SM( filed a complaint against "sia Cre*er& 4nc. $"C4( for infringement of trademar and unfair competition. 8 dismissed the complaint finding that "C4 has not committed trademar infringement or unfair competition. he " re)ersed the decision finding that "C4 is guilt& of trademar infringement and unfair competition thus the case at #ar.
4SS>A
KactsA On 2 Decem#er 199, Manila lectric ompan& $M8"O( filed *ith the nerg& 8egulator& Coard $8C( an application for the re)ision of its rate schedules. he application reflected an a)erage increase of P-.21*h in its distri#ution charge. he application also included a pra&er for pro)isional appro)al of the increase pursuant to Section 16$c( of the Pu#lic Ser)ice "ct and Section I of +ecuti)e Order 172. On 2I Januar& 199, the 8C issued an Order granting a pro)isional increase of P-.1I*h, su#5ect to the condition that in the e)ent that the Coard finds that M8"O is entitled to a lesser increase in rates, all e+cess amounts collected from the applicant3s customers as a result of this Order shall either #e refunded to them or correspondingl& credited in their fa)or for application to electric #ills co)ering future consumptions. Su#seuent to an audit #& the ommission on "udit $O"(, the 8C rendered its decision adopting O"3s recommendations and authori!ed M8"O to implement a rate ad5ustment in the a)erage amount of P-.-17*h, effecti)e *ith respect to M8"O3s #illing c&cles #eginning Ke#ruar& 199. he 8C further ordered that %the pro)isional relief in the amount of P-.1I*h granted under the Coard3s Order dated 2I Januar& 199 is here#& superseded and modified and the e+cess a)erage amount of P-.167*h starting *ith M8"O3s #illing c&cles #eginning Ke#ruar& 199 until its #illing c&cles #eginning Ke#ruar& 199I, #e refunded to M8"O3s customers or correspondingl& credited in their fa)or for future consumption.' he 8C held that income ta+ should not #e treated as operating e+pense as this should #e %#orne #& the stocholders *ho are recipients of the income or profits reali!ed from the operation of their #usiness' hence, should not #e passed on to the consumers. Kurther, in appl&ing the net a)erage in)estment method, the 8C adopted the recommendation of O" that in computing the rate #ase, onl& the proportionate )alue of the propert& should #e included, determined in accordance *ith the num#er of months the same *as actuall& used in ser)ice during the test &ear. On appeal $" ;8 SP 6III(, the ourt of "ppeals set aside the 8C decision insofar as it directed the reduction of the M8"O rates #& an a)erage of P-.167 *h and the refund of such amount to M8"O3s customers #eginning Ke#ruar& 199 and until its #illing c&cle #eginning Ke#ruar& 199I. Separate Motions for 8econsideration filed #& the petitioners *ere denied #& the ourt of "ppeals. Gence, the petition #efore the Supreme ourt. he Supreme ourt granted the petitions and re)ersed the decision of the ourt of "ppeals. M8"O *as authori!ed to adopt a rate ad5ustment in the amount of P-.-17*h, effecti)e *ith respect to M8"O3s #illing c&cles #eginning Ke#ruar& 199. Kurther, in accordance *ith the decision of the 8C dated 16 Ke#ruar& 199I, the e+cess a)erage amount of P-.167*h starting *ith the applicant3s #illing c&cles #eginning Ke#ruar& 199I is ordered to #e refunded to M8"O3s customers or correspondingl& credited
in their fa)or for future consumption. 1. 8egulation of rates #& pu#lic utilities founded on the State3s police po*ers he regulation of rates to #e charged #& pu#lic utilities is founded upon the police po*ers of the State and statutes prescri#ing rules for the control and regulation of pu#lic utilities are a )alid e+ercise thereof.
DURAN vs. ABAD SANTOS II.
NATURAL LAW: THE CLASSIC1 SCHOLASTIC1 ENLIGHTENMENT 2 POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHERS RP vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
III.
ADMU vs. CAPULONG YAMASHITA vs. STYER CARAOS vs. DA3A TECSON vs. DESIDERIO1 JR. US vs. GUENDIA US vs. SANTOS PEOPLE vs. POMAR IN RE: COLUMNS OF AMADO MACASAET IN MALAYA PEOPLE vs. 4ELASCO LAUREL vs. MISA MAN3ANARES vs. MORETA CI4IL LAW: ROMAN JURISTS TO CONTEMPORARY THINKERS KASILAG vs. RODRIGUE3 JAIN vs. IAC %0 PEOPLE PEOPLE vs. HON. 4ELASCO
I4.
CRIMINAL LAW AND FAMILY LAW: CHRISTIAN AND CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS ECHEGARAY vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE SANTOS vs. CA AND BEDIA5SANTOS ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR PEOPLE vs. DELA CRU3
4.
MERCANTILE LAW: FROM CUSTOMS TO LAW US vs. TAN 6UINGCO CHUA PNB vs. THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK COMPAGNIE FRANCO5INDOCHINOISE vs. DEUTSCHAFT 4I.
REMEDIAL LAW: THE EMPIRICAL PHILOSOPHERS APIAG vs. JUDGE CANTERO ARIAN3A vs. WORKMEN7S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
4II.
POLITICAL LAW: REFORM1 RE4OLUTION1 AND RESISTANCE TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC THE PRO4INCE O F NORTH COTABATO vs. PHILIPPINE PEACE PANEL AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE vs. SPS. RAMOS DA4ID vs. MACAPAGAL5ARROYO ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANDABAYAN
4III.
LABOR LAW: CAPITALISM1 SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM CALALANG vs. WILLIAMS DE RAMAS vs. CAR AND RAMOS PEOPLE vs. LA4A PEOPLE vs. HERNANDE3
I8.
LEGAL PHILOSOPHY SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT STA. MARIA vs. LOPE3 4ARGAS vs. RILLORA3A PERALTA vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR MIRANDA vs. ABAYA CO KIM CHAM vs. 4ALDE3 REGALA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN PRIMICIAS vs. FUGUSO ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN PADUA vs. ROBLES AND BAY TA8I CAB
RP vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 8.
POSTMODERNISM AND THE FUTURE LAW MARCOS vs. COMELEC OPOSA vs. FACTORAN ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. COMELEC CRU3 vs. SEC. OF EN4IRONMENT 2 NATURAL RESOURCES OCA vs. JUDGE FLORO IMBONG vs. OCHOA
