G.R. No. 90501 August 5, 1991 ARIS (PHIL.) INC., petitioner, vs. NATINAL LA!R R"LATINS C##ISSIN, LA!R AR!IT"R $"LIP" GAR%&'&" III, L"%"GARI %" G&#AN, LILIA P"R", R!"RT !"STA#NT" !"STA#NT",, AI%A P"NA, R"NAL% R"NAL% TRIA%, TRIA%, APLINARI GAGAHINA, GAGAHINA, R&$IN %" CASTR, CASTR, $LR%"LIA RAS RAS %"L SL, ST"*" SANCH, "ST"R CAIR, #ARI"TA #AGALA%, #AGALA%, +n #AR !. NA%ALA, responents. %A*I%", -R., J.:
Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the amendment introduced by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6715 to Article 223 of the abor !ode of the Philippines "P# No. $$2% as amended& allo'in( e)ecution pendin( appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a labor arbiter reinstatin( a dismissed or separated employee and of Section 2 of the NR! *nterim Rules on Appeals under R.A. No. 6715 implementin( the same. *t also +uestions the ,alidity of the -ransitory Pro,ision "Section 17& of the said *nterim Rules. -he challen(ed portion of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6715% 'hich too effect on 21 /arch 100% reads as follo's S! 12. Article 223 of the same code is amended to read as follo's AR-. AR-. 223. Appeal . ))) ))) ))) *n any e,ent% the decision of the abor Arbiter reinstatin( a dismissed or separated employee% in so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned% shall immediately be e)ecutory% e,en pendin( appeal. -he employee shall either be admitted bac to 'or under the same terms and conditions pre,ailin( prior to his dismissal or separation or% at the option of the employer% merely reinstated in the payroll. -he postin( of a bond by the employer shall not stay the e)ecution for reinstatement pro,ided therein. -his is a ne' para(raph in(rafted into the Article. Sections 2 and 17 of the 4NR! *nterim Rules n Appeals nder R.A. No. 6715% Amendin( the abor !ode4% 'hich the National abor Relations !ommission "NR!& promul(ated on Au(ust 100% pro,ide as follo's Section Section 2. Order of Reinstatement and Effect of Bond . *n so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned% the decision of the abor Arbiter reinstatin( a dismissed or separated employee shall immediately be e)ecutory e,en pendin( appeal. -he employee shall either be admitted bac to 'or under the same terms and conditions pre,ailin( prior to his dismissal or separation% or% at the option of the employer% merely be reinstated in the payroll. -he postin( of a bond by the employer shall not stay the e)ecution for reinstatement. ))) ))) ))) Section 17. Transitory provision. Appeals filed on or after /arch 21% 100% but prior to the effecti,ity of these *nterim Rules must conform to the re+uirements as herein set forth or as may be directed by the !ommission. -he antecedent facts and proceedin(s 'hich (a,e rise to this petition are not disputed n 11 April 10% pri,ate respondents% 'ho 'ere employees of petitioner% a((rie,ed by mana(ement8s failure to attend to their complaints concernin( their 'orin( surroundin(s 'hich had become detrimental and ha9ardous% re+uested for a (rie,ance conference. As none 'as arran(ed% and belie,in( that their their appeal 'ould be fruitless% they (rouped to(ether after the end of their 'or that day 'ith other employees and marched directly to the mana(ement8s office to protest its lon( silence and inaction on their complaints. n 12 April 10% the mana(ement issued a memorandum to each of the pri,ate respondents% 'ho 'ere identified by the petitioner8s super,isors as the most acti,e participants in the rally re+uirin( them to e)plain 'hy they should not be terminated from the ser,ice for their conduct. #espite their e)planation% pri,ate respondents 'ere dismissed for ,iolation of company rules and re(ulations% more specifically of the pro,isions on security and public order and on incitin( or participatin( in ille(al stries or concerted actions. Pri,ate respondents lost no time in filin( a complaint for ille(al dismissal a(ainst petitioner and /r. :a,ino ;ayan 'ith the re(ional office of the NR! at the National !apital Re(ion% /anila% 'hich 'as doceted doceted therein as NR!
elipe :ardu+ue :ardu+ue *** handed do'n on 22 ?une 100 a decision8 decision8 the dispositi,e dispositi,e portion of 'hich 'hich reads A!!R#*N:@ A!!R#*N:@% respondent Aris "Phils.&% *nc. is hereby ordered to reinstate 'ithin ten "1=& days from receipt hereof% herein complainants eode(ario de :u9man% Rufino de !astro% ilia /. Pere9% /arieta /a(alad% >lordeli9a Rayos del Sol% Reynaldo -oriado% Roberto ;esmonte% Apolinario :a(ahina% Aidam "sic& pena% Ste,e !. Sancho ster !airo% and /ary ;. Nadala to their former respecti,e positions or any substantial e+ui,alent positions if already filled up% 'ithout loss of seniority ri(ht and pri,ile(es but 'ith limited bac'a(es of si) "6& months e)cept complainant eode(ario de :u9man. All other claims claims and prayers are hereby denied for lac of merit. S R#R#. n 10 ?uly 100% complainants "herein pri,ate respondents& filed a /otion >or *ssuance of a rit of )ecution 2 pursuant to the abo,e< +uoted Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715. n 21 ?uly 100% petitioner filed its Appeal.3 n 26 ?uly 100% the complainants% e)cept >lor Rayos del Sol% filed a Partial Appeal. Appeal. $ n 1= Au(ust 100% complainant >lor Rayos del Sol filed a Partial Appeal.5 n 20 Au(ust 100% petitioner filed an pposition 6 to the motion for e)ecution alle(in( that Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 on e)ecution pendin( appeal cannot be applied retroacti,ely to cases pendin( at the time of its effecti,ity because because it does not e)pressly pro,ide that it shall be (i,en retroacti,e effect 7 and to (i,e retroacti,e effect to Section 12 thereof to pendin( cases 'ould not only result in the
imposition of an additional obli(ation on petitioner but 'ould also dilute its ri(ht to appeal since it 'ould be burdened 'ith the conse+uences of reinstatement 'ithout the benefit of a final Bud(ment. *n their Reply filed on 1 September 100% complainants ar(ued that R.A. No. 6715 is not sou(ht to be (i,en retroacti,e effect in this case since the decision to be e)ecuted pursuant to it 'as rendered after the effecti,ity of the Act. -he said la' too effect on 21 /arch 100% 'hile the decision 'as rendered on 22 ?une 100. Petitioner submitted a ReBoinder to the Reply on 5 September 100.0 n 5 ctober 100% the abor Arbiter issued an rder (rantin( the motion for e)ecution and the issuance of a partial 'rit of e)ecution1= as far as reinstatement of herein complainants is concerned in consonance 'ith the pro,ision of Section 2 of the rules particularly the last sentence thereof. *n this rder% the abor Arbiter also made reference to Section 17 of the NR! *nterim Rules in this 'ise Since Section 17 of the said rules made mention of appeals filed on or after /arch 21% 100% but prior to the effecti,ity of these interim rules 'hich must conform 'ith the re+uirements as therein set forth "Section 0& or as may be directed by the !ommission% it ob,iously treats of decisions of abor Arbiters before /arch 21%100. ith more reason these interim rules be made to apply to the instant case since the decision hereof "sic& 'as rendered thereafter.11 nable to accept the abo,e rder% petitioner filed the instant petition on 26 ctober 10012 raisin( the issues ad,erted to in the introductory portion of this decision under the follo'in( assi(nment of errors A.
;.
-C A;R AR;*-R A QUO AN# -C NR!% *N R#R*N: -C R*NS-A-/N- > -C PR*DA- RSPN#N-S PN#*N: APPA AN# *N PRD*#*N: >R S!-*N 2 > -C *N-R*/ RS% RSP!-*D@ RSP!-*D@% A!-# *-C- AN# *N E!SS > ?R*S#*!-*N S*N! -C ;AS*S >R SA*# R#R AN# *N-R*/ R% i.e.% S!-*N 12 > R.A. 6715 *S D*A-*D > -C !NS-*--*NA :ARAN-@ > # PR!SS *- ;*N: PPRSS*D AN# NRASNA;. :RAN-*N: ARGUENDO -CA- -C PRD*S*N *N"S*!& R*NS-A-/N- PN#*N: APPA *S DA*#% NN-CSS% -C A;R AR;*-R A F AN# -C NR! S-* A!-# *N E!SS AN# *-C- ?R*S#*!-*N *N R-RA!-*D@ APP@*N: APP@*N: SA*# PRD*S*N PRD*S*N - PN#*N: PN#*N: A;R A;R !ASS.
*n ur resolution of 7 /arch 100% e re+uired the respondents to comment on the petition. Respondent NR!% throu(h the ffice of the Solicitor :eneral% filed its !omment on 2= No,ember 100. 13 /eetin( s+uarely the issues raised by petitioner% it submits that the pro,ision concernin( the mandatory and automatic reinstatement of an employee 'hose dismissal is found unBustified by the labor arbiter is a ,alid e)ercise of the police po'er of the state and the contested pro,ision 4is then a police le(islation.G As re(ards the retroacti,e application thereof% it maintains that bein( merely procedural in nature% it can apply to cases pendin( at the time of its effecti,ity on the theory that no one can claim a ,ested ri(ht in a rule of procedure. /oreo,er% such a la' is compatible 'ith the constitutional pro,ision on protection to labor. n 11 #ecember 100% pri,ate r espondents filed a /anifestation1$ informin( the !ourt that they are adoptin( the !omment filed by the Solicitor :eneral and stressin( that petitioner failed to comply 'ith the re+uisites for a ,alid petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of !ourt. n 2= #ecember 100% petitioner filed a ReBoinder 15 to the !omment of the Solicitor :eneral. *n the resolution of 11 ?anuary 100=%16 e considered the !omments as respondents8 Ans'ers% (a,e due course to the petition% and directed that the case be calendared for deliberation. *n ur(in( s to declare as unconstitutional that portion of Section 223 of the abor !ode introduced by Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715% as 'ell as the implementin( pro,ision co,ered by Section 2 of the NR! *nterim Rules% allo'in( immediate e)ecution% e,en pendin( appeal% of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a labor arbiter reinstatin( a dismissed or separated employee% petitioner submits that said portion ,iolates the due process clause of the !onstitution in that it is oppressi,e and unreasonable. *t ar(ues that a reinstatement pendin( appeal ne(ates the ri(ht of the employer to selfor% social Bustice should be implemented not throu(h mistaen sympathy for or misplaced antipathy a(ainst any (roup% but e,en
imposition of an additional obli(ation on petitioner but 'ould also dilute its ri(ht to appeal since it 'ould be burdened 'ith the conse+uences of reinstatement 'ithout the benefit of a final Bud(ment. *n their Reply filed on 1 September 100% complainants ar(ued that R.A. No. 6715 is not sou(ht to be (i,en retroacti,e effect in this case since the decision to be e)ecuted pursuant to it 'as rendered after the effecti,ity of the Act. -he said la' too effect on 21 /arch 100% 'hile the decision 'as rendered on 22 ?une 100. Petitioner submitted a ReBoinder to the Reply on 5 September 100.0 n 5 ctober 100% the abor Arbiter issued an rder (rantin( the motion for e)ecution and the issuance of a partial 'rit of e)ecution1= as far as reinstatement of herein complainants is concerned in consonance 'ith the pro,ision of Section 2 of the rules particularly the last sentence thereof. *n this rder% the abor Arbiter also made reference to Section 17 of the NR! *nterim Rules in this 'ise Since Section 17 of the said rules made mention of appeals filed on or after /arch 21% 100% but prior to the effecti,ity of these interim rules 'hich must conform 'ith the re+uirements as therein set forth "Section 0& or as may be directed by the !ommission% it ob,iously treats of decisions of abor Arbiters before /arch 21%100. ith more reason these interim rules be made to apply to the instant case since the decision hereof "sic& 'as rendered thereafter.11 nable to accept the abo,e rder% petitioner filed the instant petition on 26 ctober 10012 raisin( the issues ad,erted to in the introductory portion of this decision under the follo'in( assi(nment of errors A.
;.
-C A;R AR;*-R A QUO AN# -C NR!% *N R#R*N: -C R*NS-A-/N- > -C PR*DA- RSPN#N-S PN#*N: APPA AN# *N PRD*#*N: >R S!-*N 2 > -C *N-R*/ RS% RSP!-*D@ RSP!-*D@% A!-# *-C- AN# *N E!SS > ?R*S#*!-*N S*N! -C ;AS*S >R SA*# R#R AN# *N-R*/ R% i.e.% S!-*N 12 > R.A. 6715 *S D*A-*D > -C !NS-*--*NA :ARAN-@ > # PR!SS *- ;*N: PPRSS*D AN# NRASNA;. :RAN-*N: ARGUENDO -CA- -C PRD*S*N *N"S*!& R*NS-A-/N- PN#*N: APPA *S DA*#% NN-CSS% -C A;R AR;*-R A F AN# -C NR! S-* A!-# *N E!SS AN# *-C- ?R*S#*!-*N *N R-RA!-*D@ APP@*N: APP@*N: SA*# PRD*S*N PRD*S*N - PN#*N: PN#*N: A;R A;R !ASS.
*n ur resolution of 7 /arch 100% e re+uired the respondents to comment on the petition. Respondent NR!% throu(h the ffice of the Solicitor :eneral% filed its !omment on 2= No,ember 100. 13 /eetin( s+uarely the issues raised by petitioner% it submits that the pro,ision concernin( the mandatory and automatic reinstatement of an employee 'hose dismissal is found unBustified by the labor arbiter is a ,alid e)ercise of the police po'er of the state and the contested pro,ision 4is then a police le(islation.G As re(ards the retroacti,e application thereof% it maintains that bein( merely procedural in nature% it can apply to cases pendin( at the time of its effecti,ity on the theory that no one can claim a ,ested ri(ht in a rule of procedure. /oreo,er% such a la' is compatible 'ith the constitutional pro,ision on protection to labor. n 11 #ecember 100% pri,ate r espondents filed a /anifestation1$ informin( the !ourt that they are adoptin( the !omment filed by the Solicitor :eneral and stressin( that petitioner failed to comply 'ith the re+uisites for a ,alid petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of !ourt. n 2= #ecember 100% petitioner filed a ReBoinder 15 to the !omment of the Solicitor :eneral. *n the resolution of 11 ?anuary 100=%16 e considered the !omments as respondents8 Ans'ers% (a,e due course to the petition% and directed that the case be calendared for deliberation. *n ur(in( s to declare as unconstitutional that portion of Section 223 of the abor !ode introduced by Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715% as 'ell as the implementin( pro,ision co,ered by Section 2 of the NR! *nterim Rules% allo'in( immediate e)ecution% e,en pendin( appeal% of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a labor arbiter reinstatin( a dismissed or separated employee% petitioner submits that said portion ,iolates the due process clause of the !onstitution in that it is oppressi,e and unreasonable. *t ar(ues that a reinstatement pendin( appeal ne(ates the ri(ht of the employer to selfor% social Bustice should be implemented not throu(h mistaen sympathy for or misplaced antipathy a(ainst any (roup% but e,en
*n authori9in( e)ecution pendin( appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of the abor Arbiter reinstatin( a dismissed or separated employee% the la' itself has laid do'n a compassionate compassionate policy 'hich% once more% ,i,ifies and enhances the pro,isions of the 107 !onstitution on labor and the 'orin(or one thin(% it is in accordance 'ith the settled doctrine that bet'een t'o possible constructions% one a,oidin( a findin( of unconstitutionality unconstitutionality and the other yieldin( such a result% the former is to be preferred. -hat 'hich 'ill sa,e% not that 'hich 'ill destroy% commends itself for acceptance. After all% the basic presumption all these years is one of ,alidity. -he onerous tas of pro,in( other'ise is on the party seein( to nullify a statute. *t must be pro,ed by clear and con,incin( e,idence that there is an infrin(ement of a constitutional pro,ision% sa,e in those cases 'here the challen(ed act is ,oid on its face. Absent such a sho'in(% there can be no findin( of unconstitutionality unconstitutionality.. A doubt% e,en if 'ellR% the petition is hereby #*S/*SS# for lac of merit. !osts a(ainst petitioner. S R#R#.
G.R. No. 1150 -+nu+r/ , 1995 HN. AL$R"% S. LI#, in 2is 3+p+3it/ +s #+/or o4 #+ni+, +n t2e Cit/ o4 #+ni+, petitioners, vs. HN. $"LIP" G. PAC'&ING, +s -uge, 6r+n32 0, Region+ Tri+ Court o4 #+ni+ +n ASSCIAT"% CRPRATIN, responents. G.R. No. 1178 -+nu+r/ , 1995 T"$IST G&INGNA, -R. +n %#INA%R R. C"P"%A, petitioners, vs. HN. *"TIN R""S +n ASSCIAT"% %"*"LP#"NT CRPRATIN, responents. PA%ILLA, J.:
-hese t'o "2& cases 'hich are interirst #i,ision of this !ourt on =1 September 100$ based on a findin( that there 'as 4no abuse of discretion% much less lac of or e)cess of Burisdiction% on the part of respondent Bud(e JPac+uin(K4% in issuin( the +uestioned orders. ?ud(e Pac+uin( had earlier issued in !i,il !ase No. <$566=% R-! of /anila% ;ranch $=% the follo'in( orders 'hich 'ere assailed by the /ayor of the !ity of /anila% Con. Alfredo S. im% in said :.R. No. 115=$$ a. order dated 2 /arch 100$ directin( /anila mayor Alfredo S. im to issue the permit#license to operate the Bairancisco R. Sumulon(% Br. to hold in abeyance the (rant of authority% or if any had been issued% to 'ithdra' such (rant of authority% to Associated #e,elopment !orporation to operate the Baiile a /otion for reconsideration in *nter,entionH and to Refer the case to the !ourt En Banc 4 and later a 4/otion for ea,e to >ile Supplemental /otion for Reconsideration
n the issue of the propriety of the inter,ention by the Republic of the Philippines% a +uestion 'as raised durin( the hearin( on 1= No,ember 100$ as to 'hether inter,ention in :.R. No. 115=$$ 'as the proper remedy for the national (o,ernment to tae in +uestionin( the e)istence of a ,alid A#! franchise to operate the Baiirst #i,ision in said case% aside from not bein( final% cannot ha,e the effect of nullifyin( P# No. 771 as unconstitutional% since only the !ourt En Banc has that po'er under Article D***% Section $"2& of the !onstitution.$ And on the +uestion of 'hether or not the (o,ernment is estopped from contestin( A#!8s possession of a ,alid franchise% the 'ell< settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistaes or errors% if any% of its officials or a(ents " Rep!*lic v. +ntermediate Appellate 'o!rt % 2=0 S!RA 0=& !onse+uently% in the li(ht of the fore(oin( e)postulation% 'e conclude that the republic "in contra distinction to the !ity of /anila& may be allo'ed to inter,ene in :.R. No. 115=$$. -he Republic is inter,enin( in :.R. No. 115=$$ in the e)ercise% not of its business or proprietary functions% but in the e)ercise of its (o,ernmental functions to protect public morals and promote the (eneral 'elfare. II
Anent the +uestion of 'hether A#! has a ,alid franchise to operate the ?aior *ts Diolation4. -he pro,isions of Republic Act No. 05$ relatin( to Bai
Sec. 5. No person % operator or maintainer of a fronton %it) le(islative franc)ise to conduct bas+ue pelota (ames s)all offer % tae% or arran(e bets on any bas+ue pelota (ame or e,ent% or maintain or use a totali9ator or other de,ice% method or system to bet or (amble on any bas+ue pelota (ame or e,ent o!tside t)e place % enclos!re, or fronton %)ere t)e *as$!e pelota (ame is )eld . $. n =7 September 1071% ho'e,er% the /unicipal ;oard of /anila nonetheless passed rdinance No. 7=65 entitled 4An rdinance Authori9in( the /ayor -o Allo' And Permit -he Associated #e,elopment !orporation -o stablish% /aintain And perate A ?aior ther Purposes.G 5. n 2= Au(ust 1075% Presidential #ecree No. 771 'as issued by then President /arcos. -he decree% entitled 4Re,oin( All Po'ers and Authority of ocal :o,ernment"s& -o :rant >ranchise% icense or Permit And Re(ulate a(ers r ;ettin( ;y -he Public n Corse And #o( Races% ?aiorms f :amblin(4% in "ection t)ereof, epressly revo-ed all eistin( franc)ises and permits iss!ed *y local (overnments. 6. n 16 ctober 1075% Presidential #ecree No. 1=% entitled 4An Act (rantin( -he Philippine ?airanchise -o perate% !onstruct And /aintain A >ronton >or ;as+ue Pelota And Similar :ames of Sill *n -C :reater /anila Area%4 'as promul(ated. 7 n = /ay 107% then President A+uino% by ,irtue of Article ED***% Section 6% of the !onstitution% 'hich allo'ed the incumbent le(islati,e po'ers until the first !on(ress 'as con,ened% issued )ecuti,e rder No. 160 e)pressly repealin( P# 1= and re,oin( and cancellin( the franchise (ranted to the Philippine ?aiurther% the (o,ernment ar(ues that )ecuti,e rder No. 302 dated =1 ?anuary 1051 transferred e,en the po'er to re(ulate ?aiRAN!C*S# by the national (o,ernment to so operate. /oreo,er% e,en this po'er to license% permit% or re(ulate 'a(ers or bettin( on Bairom the rulin( in era% it 'ould be lo(ical to conclude that% if A#!8s ar(uments 'ere to pre,ail% this !ourt 'ould lie'ise declare Section 1"BB& of the Re,ised !harter of /anila unconstitutional for the po'er it 'ould dele(ate to the /unicipal ;oard of /anila 'ould (i,e the latter the absolute and unlimited discretion to render the penal code pro,isions on (amblin( inapplicable or inoperati,e to persons or entities issued permits to operate (amblin( establishments in the !ity of /anila. e need not (o to this e)tent% ho'e,er% since the rule is that la's must be presumed ,alid% constitutional and in harmony 'ith other la's. -hus% the rele,ant pro,isions of Rep. Acts Nos. $=0 and 05$ and rdinance No. 7=65 should be taen to(ether and it should then
be clear that the le(islati,e po'ers of the /unicipal ;oard should be understood to be re(ulatory in nature and that Republic Act No. 05$ should be understood to refer to con(ressional franc)ises% as a necessity for the operation of Bai
*t should also be remembered that P# No. 771 pro,ides that the national (overnment can subse+uently (rant franchises 4upon proper application and ,erification of the +ualifications of the applicant.4 A#! has not alle(ed that it filed an application for a franchise 'ith the national (o,ernment subse+uent to the enactment of P# No. 771H thus% the alle(ations abo,ementioned "of preference to a select (roup& are based on conBectures% speculations and ima(ined biases 'hich do not 'arrant the consideration of this !ourt. n the other hand% it is note'orthy that 'hile then president A+uino issued )ecuti,e rder No. 160 re,oin( P# No. 1= "'hich (ranted a franchise to a /arcosinch% adopted by ;lacstone% and accepted by e,ery authority since . . . -oday% a franchise bein( merely a
pri,ile(e emanatin( from the so,erei(n po'er of the state and o'in( its e)istence to a (rant% is subBect to re(ulation by the state itself by ,irtue of its police po'er throu(h its administrati,e a(encies. -here is a stron(er reason for holdin( A#!8s permit to be a mere pri,ile(e because Baiinally% 'e do not a(ree that Section 3 of P# No. 771 and the re+uirement of a le(islati,e franchise in Republic Act No. 05$ are 4riders4 to the t'o 02& la's and are ,iolati,e of the rule that la's should embrace one subBect 'hich shall be e)pressed in the title% as ar(ued by A#!. *n 'ordero v. 'a*at!ando "6 S!RA $1&% this !ourt ruled that the re+uirement under the constitution that all la's should embrace only one subBect 'hich shall be e)pressed in the title is sufficiently met if the title is comprehensi,e enou(h reasonably to include the (eneral obBect 'hich the statute sees to effect% 'ithout e)pressin( each and e,ery end and means necessary or con,enient for the accomplishin( of the obBecti,e. III
n the issue of 'hether or not there 'as (ra,e abuse of discretion committed by respondent ?ud(e Reyes in issuin( the temporary restrainin( order "later con,erted to a 'rit of preliminary inBunction& and the 'rit of preliminary mandatory inBunction% 'e hold and rule there 'as. Section 3% Rule 5 of the rules of !ourt pro,ides for the (rounds for the issuance of a preliminary inBunction. hile A#! could alle(e these (rounds% respondent Bud(e should ha,e taen Budicial notice of Republic Act No. 05$ and P# 771% under Section 1 rule 120 of the Rules of court. -hese la's ne(ate the e)istence of any le(al ri(ht on the part of A#! to the reliefs it sou(ht so as to Bustify the issuance of a 'rit of preliminary inBunction. since P# No. 771 and Republic Act No. 05$ are presumed ,alid and constitutional until ruled other'ise by the Supreme !ourt after due hearin(% A#! 'as not entitled to the 'rits issued and conse+uently there 'as (ra,e abuse of discretion in issuin( them. CR>R% for the fore(oin( reasons% Bud(ment is hereby rendered 1. allo'in( the Republic of the Philippines to inter,ene in :.R. No. 115=$$. 2. declarin( Presidential #ecree No. 771 ,alid and constitutional. 3. declarin( that respondent Associated #e,elopment corporation "A#!& does not possess the re+uired con(ressional franchise to operate and conduct the Bai
G.R. No. 197. Septe:6er , 00; -*"NCI LI# +n T"R"SITA LI#, petitioners, vs. TH" P"PL" $ TH" PHILIPPIN"S, TH" R"GINAL TRIAL C&RT $ '&"N CIT, !RANCH 1, TH" CIT PRS"C&TR $ '&"N CIT, AN%
-he constitutionality of P# 1% a decree 'hich amended Article 315 of the Re,ised Penal !ode by increasin( the penalties for estafa committed by means of bouncin( checs% is bein( challen(ed in this petition for certiorari% for bein( ,iolati,e of the due process clause% the ri(ht to bail and the pro,ision a(ainst cruel% de(radin( or inhuman punishment enshrined under the !onstitution. -he antecedents of this case% as (athered from the parties pleadin(s and documentary proofs% follo'. *n #ecember 1001% petitioner spouses issued to pri,ate respondent t'o postdated checs% namely% /etroban chec no. $6$72 dated ?anuary 15% 1002 in the amount of P365%75= and /etroban chec no. $6$7$3 dated ?anuary 22% 1002 in the amount of P$20%===. !hec no. $6$72 'as dishonored upon presentment for ha,in( been dra'n a(ainst insufficient funds 'hile chec no. $6$7$3 'as not presented for payment upon re+uest of petitioners 'ho promised to replace the dishonored chec. hen petitioners rene(ed on their promise to co,er the amount of chec no. $6$72% the pri,ate respondent filed a complaintebruary 16% 2==1% the !ity Prosecutor issued a resolution findin( probable cause a(ainst petitioners and recommendin( the filin( of an information for estafa 'ith no bail recommended. n the same day% an information for the crime of estafa 'as filed 'ith ;ranch 217 of the Re(ional -rial !ourt of Fue9on !ity a(ainst petitioners. -he case 'as doceted as !riminal !ase No. F<=1<1=157$. -hereafter% the trial court issued a 'arrant for the arrest of herein petitioners% thus *t appearin( on the face of the information and from supportin( affida,it of the complainin( 'itness and its anne)es that probable cause e)ists% that the crime char(ed 'as committed and accused is probably (uilty thereof% let a 'arrant for the arrest of the accused be issued. No ;ail Recommended. "O ORDERED.
n ?uly 1% 2==1% petitioners filed an r(ent /otion to Fuash *nformation and arrant of Arrest 'hich 'as denied by the trial court. ie'ise% petitioners motion for bail filed on ?uly 2$% 2==1 'as denied by the trial court on the same day. Petitioner ?o,encio im 'as arrested by ,irtue of the 'arrant of arrest issued by the trial court and 'as detained at the Fue9on !ity ?ail. Co'e,er% petitioner -eresita im remained at lar(e. n Au(ust 22% 2==1% petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari imputin( (ra,e abuse of discretion on the part of the lo'er court and the ffice of the !ity Prosecutor of Fue9on !ity% ar(uin( that P# 1 ,iolates the constitutional pro,isions on due process% bail and imposition of cruel% de(radin( or inhuman punishment. *n a resolution dated >ebruary 26% 2==2% this !ourt (ranted the petition of ?o,encio im to post bail pursuant to #epartment of ?ustice !ircular No. 7$ dated No,ember 6% 2==1 'hich amended the 2=== ;ail ;ond :uide in,ol,in( estafa under Article 315% par. 2 "d&% and +ualified theft. Said !ircular specifically pro,ides as follo's ))) ))) ))) 3& here the amount of fraud is P32%===.== or o,er in 'hich the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua% bail shall be based on reclusion temporal ma)imum% pursuant to Par. 2 "a& of the 2=== ;ail ;ond :uide% multiplied by P2%===.==% plus an additional of P2%===.== for e,ery P1=%===.== in e)cess of P22%===.==H Pro,ided% ho'e,er% that the total amount of bail shall not e)ceed P6=%===.==. *n ,ie' of the aforementioned resolution% the matter concernin( bail shall no lon(er be discussed. -hus% this decision 'ill focus on 'hether or not P# 1 ,iolates Sections 1 and 10 of Article *** of the !onstitution% 'hich respecti,ely pro,ide Section 1. No person shall be depri,ed of life% liberty or property 'ithout due process of la'% nor shall any person be denied the e+ual protection of the la's. ))) Section 10 "1& )cessi,e fines shall not be imposed% nor cruel% de(radin( or inhuman punishment inflicted. ) ) ). e shall deal first 'ith the issue of 'hether P# 1 'as enacted in contra,ention of Section 10 of Article *** of the !onstitution. *n this re(ard% the impu(ned pro,ision of P# 1 reads as follo's S!-*N 1. Any person 'ho shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in para(raph 2"d& of Article 315 of the Re,ised Penal !ode% as amended by Republic Act No. $5% shall be punished by 1st. -he penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is o,er 12%=== pesos but does not e)ceed 22%=== pesos% and if such amount e)ceeds the later sum% the penalty pro,ided in this para(raph shall be imposed in its ma)imum period% addin( one year for each additional 1=%=== pesos but the total penalty 'hich may be imposed shall in no case e)ceed thirty years. *n such cases% and in connection 'ith the accessory penalties 'hich may be imposed under the Re,ised Penal !ode% the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetuaH 2nd. -he penalty of prision mayor in its ma)imum period% if the amount of the fraud is o,er 6%=== pesos but does not e)ceed 12%=== pesos. 3rd. -he penalty of prision mayor in its medium period% if such amount is o,er 2== pesos but does not e)ceed 6%=== pesosH and $th. ;y prision mayor in its minimum period% if such amount does not e)ceed 2== pesos.
Petitioners contend that% inasmuch as the amount of the subBect chec is P365%75=% they can be penali9ed 'ith recl!sion perpet!a or 3= years of imprisonment. -his penalty% accordin( to petitioners% is too se,ere and disproportionate to the crime they committed and infrin(es on the e)press mandate of Article ***% Section 10 of the !onstitution 'hich prohibits the infliction of cruel% de(radin( and inhuman punishment. Settled is the rule that a punishment authori9ed by statute is not cruel% de(radin( or disproportionate to the nature of the offense unless it is fla(rantly and plainly oppressi,e and 'holly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shoc the moral sense of the community. *t taes more than merely bein( harsh% e)cessi,e% out of proportion or se,ere for a penalty to be obno)ious to the !onstitution.Jif support>ootnotesKJ2KJendifK ;ased on this principle% the !ourt has consistently o,erruled contentions of the defense that the penalty of fine or imprisonment authori9ed by the statute in,ol,ed is cruel and de(radin(. *n People vs. Ton(-o%this !ourt held that the prohibition a(ainst cruel and unusual punishment is (enerally aimed at the form or character of the punishment rather than its se,erity in respect of its duration or amount% and applies to punishments 'hich ne,er e)isted in America or 'hich public sentiment re(ards as cruel or obsolete. -his refers% for instance% to those inflicted at the 'hippin( post or in the pillory% to burnin( at the stae% breain( on the 'heel% disembo'elin( and the lie. -he fact that the penalty is se,ere pro,ides insufficient basis to declare a la' unconstitutional and does not% by that circumstance alone% mae it cruel and inhuman. Petitioners also ar(ue that 'hile P# 1 increased the imposable penalties for estafa committed under Article 315% par. 2 "d& of the Re,ised Penal !ode% it did not increase the amounts correspondin( to the said ne' penalties. -hus% the ori(inal amounts pro,ided for in the Re,ised Penal !ode ha,e remained the same not'ithstandin( that they ha,e become ne(li(ible and insi(nificant compared to the present ,alue of the peso. -his ar(ument is 'ithout merit. -he primary purpose of P# 1 is emphatically and cate(orically stated in the follo'in( CRAS% reports recei,ed of late indicate an upsur(e of estafa "s'indlin(& cases committed by means of bouncin( checsH CRAS% if not checed at once% these criminal acts 'ould erode the peoples confidence in the use of ne(otiable instruments as a medium of commercial transaction and conse+uently result in the retardation of trade and commerce and the underminin( of the banin( system of the countryH CRAS% it is ,itally necessary to arrest and curb the rise in this ind of estafa cases by increasin( the e)istin( penalties pro,ided therefor. !learly% the increase in the penalty% far from bein( cruel and de(radin(% 'as moti,ated by a laudable purpose% namely% to effectuate the repression of an e,il that undermines the countrys commercial and economic (ro'th% and to ser,e as a necessary precaution to deter people from issuin( bouncin( checs. -he fact that P# 1 did not increase the amounts correspondin( to the ne' penalties only pro,es that the amount is immaterial and inconse+uential. hat the la' sou(ht to a,ert 'as the proliferation of estafa cases committed by means of bouncin( checs. -ain( into account the salutary purpose for 'hich said la' 'as decreed% 'e conclude that P# 1 does not ,iolate Section 10 of Article *** of the !onstitution. /oreo,er% 'hen a la' is +uestioned before the !ourt% the presumption is in fa,or of its constitutionality. -o Bustify its nullification% there must be a clear and unmistaable breach of the !onstitution% not a doubtful and ar(umentati,e one. -he burden of pro,in( the in,alidity of a la' rests on those 'ho challen(e it. *n this case% petitioners failed to present clear and con,incin( proof to defeat the presumption of constitutionality of P# 1. ith respect to the issue of 'hether P# 1 infrin(es on Section 1 of Article *** of the !onstitution% petitioners claim that P# 1 is ,iolati,e of the due process clause of the !onstitution as it 'as not published in the fficial :a9ette. -his claim is incorrect and must be reBected. Publication% bein( an indispensable part of due process% is imperati,e to the ,alidity of la's% presidential decrees and e)ecuti,e orders. P# 1 'as published in the fficial :a9ette on #ecember 1% 1075. ith the fore(oin( considerations in mind% this !ourt upholds the constitutionality of P# 1.
G.R. No. 98. August 1, 199; >AR"N ". SAL*ACIN, :inor, t2ru $eeri3o N. S+v+3ion, -r., 4+t2er +n N+tur+ Gu+ri+n, +n Spouses $"%"RIC N. SAL*ACIN, -R., +n "*"LINA ". SAL*ACIN, petitioners, vs. C"NTRAL !AN> $ TH" PHILIPPIN"S, CHINA !AN>ING CRPRATIN +n GR"G !ART"LLI / NRTHCTT, respondents. %"CISIN TRR"S, -R., J .=
*n our predisposition to disco,er the ori(inal intent of a statute% courts become the unfeelin( pillars of the stat!s $!o. ittle do 'e reali9e that statutes or e,en constitutions are bundles of compromises thro'n our 'ay by their framers. nless 'e e)ercise ,i(ilance% the statute may already be out of tune and irrele,ant to our day. -he petition is for declaratory relief. *t prays for the follo'in( reliefs a.& *mmediately upon the filin( of this petition% an rder be issued restrainin( the respondents from applyin( and enforcin( Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06=H b.& After hearin(% Bud(ment be rendered 1.& #eclarin( the respecti,e ri(hts and duties of petitioners and respondentsH 2.& AdBud(in( Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= as contrary to the pro,ision of the !onstitution% hence ,oidH because its pro,ision that >orei(n currency deposits shall be e)empt from attachment% (arnishment% or any other order to process of any court% le(islati,e body% (o,ernment a(ency or any administrati,e body 'hatsoe,er i.& has taen a'ay the ri(ht of petitioners to ha,e the ban deposit of defendant :re( ;artelli y Northcott (arnished to satisfy the Bud(ment rendered in petitioners fa,or in ,iolation of substanti,e due process (uaranteed by the !onstitutionH ii.& has (i,en forei(n currency depositors an undue fa,or or a class pri,ile(e in ,iolation of the e+ual protection clause of the !onstitutionH iii.& has pro,ided a safe ha,en for criminals lie the herein respondent :re( ;artelli y Northcott since criminals could escape ci,il liability for their 'ron(ful acts by merely con,ertin( their money to a forei(n currency and depositin( it in a forei(n currency deposit account 'ith an authori9ed ban. -he antecedents facts n >ebruary $% 100% :re( ;artelli y Northcott% an American tourist% coa)ed and lured petitioner Maren Sal,acion% then 12 years old to (o 'ith him to his apartment. -herein% :re( ;artelli detained Maren Sal,acion for four days% or up to >ebruary 7% 100 and 'as able to rape the child once on >ebruary $% and three times each day on >ebruary 5% 6% and 7% 100. n >ebruary 7% 100% after policemen and people li,in( nearby% rescued Maren% :re( ;artelli 'as arrested and detained at the /aati /unicipal ?ail. -he policemen reco,ered from ;artelli the follo'in( items 1.& #ollar !hec No. 36% !ontrol No. =21===67<11661113=3% S 3%0=3.2=H 2.& !!;ANM ;an ;oo No. 1=$<1=75< " Peso Acct.&H 3.& #ollar Account !hina ;anin( !orp.% S OLA5$1=5=2<2H $.& *#<122<3=<77H 5.& Philippine /oney "P23$.==& cashH 6.& #oor Meys 6 piecesH 7.& Stuffed #oll "-eddy ;ear& used in seducin( the complainant. n >ebruary 16% 100% /aati *n,esti(atin( >iscal d'in :. !ondaya filed a(ainst :re( ;artelli% !riminal !ase No. =1 for Serious *lle(al #etention and !riminal !ases Nos. =2% =3% =$% and =5 for four "$& counts of Rape. n the same day% petitioners filed 'ith the Re(ional -rial !ourt of /aati !i,il !ase No. 0<321$ for dama(es 'ith preliminary attachment a(ainst :re( ;artelli. n >ebruary 2$% 100% the day there 'as a scheduled hearin( for ;artellis petition for bail the latter escaped from Bail. n >ebruary 2% 100% the court (ranted the fiscals r(ent E5Parte /otion for the *ssuance of arrant of Arrest and Cold #eparture rder. Pendin( the arrest of the accused :re( ;artelli y Northcott% the criminal cases 'ere archi,ed in an rder dated >ebruary 2% 100. /ean'hile% in !i,il !ase No. 0<321$% the ?ud(e issued an rder dated >ebruary 22% 100 (rantin( the application of herein petitioners% for the issuance of the 'rit of preliminary attachment. After petitioners (a,e ;ond No. ?! "$& 101 by >: *nsurance !orporation in the amount P1==%===.==% a rit of Preliminary Attachment 'as issued by the trial court on >ebruary 2% 100. n /arch 1% 100% the #eputy Sheriff of /aati ser,ed a Notice of :arnishment on !hina ;anin( !orporation. *n a letter dated /arch 13% 100 to the #eputy Sheriff of /aati% !hina ;anin( !orporation in,oed Republic Act No. 1$=5 as its ans'er to the notice of (arnishment ser,ed on it. n /arch 15% 100% #eputy Sheriff of /aati Armando de :u9man sent his reply to !hina ;anin( !orporation sayin( that the (arnishment did not ,iolate the secrecy of ban deposits since the disclosure is merely incidental to a (arnishment properly and le(ally made by ,irtue of a court order 'hich has placed the subBect deposits in c!stodia le(is. *n ans'er to this letter of the #eputy Sheriff of /aati% !hina ;anin( !orporation% in a letter dated /arch 2=% 100% in,oed Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= to the effect that the dollar deposits of defendant :re( ;artelli are e)empt from attachment% (arnishment% or any other order or process of any court% le(islati,e body% (o,ernment a(ency or any administrati,e body% 'hatsoe,er. -his prompted the counsel for petitioners to mae an in+uiry 'ith the !entral ;an in a letter dated April 25% 100 on 'hether Section 113 of !; !ircular No. 06= has any e)ception or 'hether said section has been repealed or amended since said section has rendered nu(atory the substanti,e ri(ht of the plaintiff to ha,e the claim sou(ht to be enforced by the ci,il action secured by 'ay of the 'rit of preliminary attachment as (ranted to the plaintiff under Rule 57 of the Re,ised Rules of !ourt. -he !entral ;an responded as follo's /ay 26% 100 /s. rlinda S. !arolino 12 Pres. smea A,enue South Admiral Dilla(e Parana+ue% /etro /anila
#ear /s. !arolino -his is in reply to your letter dated April 25% 100 re(ardin( your in+uiry on Section 113% !; !ircular No. 06= "103&. -he cited pro,ision is absolute in application. *t does not admit of any e)ception% nor has the same been repealed nor amended. -he purpose of the la' is to encoura(e dollar accounts 'ithin the countrys banin( system 'hich 'ould help in the de,elopment of the economy. -here is no intention to render futile the basic ri(hts of a person as 'as su((ested in your subBect letter. -he la' may be harsh as some percei,e it% but it is still the la'. !ompliance is% therefore% enBoined. Dery truly yours% "S:#& A:AP*- S. >A?AR# #irector /ean'hile% on April 1=% 100% the trial court (ranted petitioners motion for lea,e to ser,e summons by publication in the !i,il !ase No. 0<321$ entitled Maren Sal,acion. et al. vs. :re( ;artelli y Northcott. Summons 'ith the complaint 'as published in the /anila -imes once a 'ee for three consecuti,e 'ees. :re( ;artelli failed to file his ans'er to the complaint and 'as declared in default on Au(ust 7% 100. After hearin( the case e5parte, the court rendered Bud(ment in fa,or of petitioners on /arch 20% 100=% the dispositi,e portion of 'hich reads CR>R% Bud(ment is hereby rendered in fa,or of plaintiffs and a(ainst defendant% orderin( the latter 1. -o pay plaintiff Maren . Sal,acion the amount of P5==%===.== as moral dama(esH 2. -o pay her parents% plaintiffs spouses >ederico N. Sal,acion% ?r.% and ,elina . Sal,acion the amount of P15=%===.== each or a total of P3==%===.== for both of themH 3. -o pay plaintiffs e)emplary dama(es of P1==%===.==H and $. -o pay attorneys fees in an amount e+ui,alent to 25Q of the total amount of dama(es herein a'ardedH 5. -o pay liti(ation e)penses of P1=%===.==H plus 6. !osts of the suit. S R#R#. -he heinous acts of respondents :re( ;artelli 'hich (a,e rise to the a'ard 'ere related in (raphic detail by the trial court in its decision as follo's -he defendant in this case 'as ori(inally detained in the municipal Bail of /aati but 'as able to escape therefrom on >ebruary 2$% 100 as per report of the ?ail arden of /aati to the Presidin( ?ud(e% Conorable /anuel /. !osico of the Re(ional -rial !ourt of /aati% ;ranch 136% 'here he 'as char(ed 'ith four counts of Rape and Serious *lle(al #etention "!rim. !ases Nos. =2 to =5&. Accordin(ly% upon motion of plaintiffs% throu(h counsel% summons 'as ser,ed upon defendant by publication in the /anila -imes% a ne'spaper of (eneral circulation as attested by the Ad,ertisin( /ana(er of the /etro /edia -imes% *nc.% the publisher of the said ne'spaper. #efendant% ho'e,er% failed to file his ans'er to the complaint despite the lapse of the period of si)ty "6=& days from the last publicationH hence% upon motion of the plaintiffs throu(h counsel% defendant 'as declared in default and plaintiffs 'ere authori9ed to present their e,idence e parte . *n support of the complaint% plaintiffs presented as 'itness the minor Maren . Sal,acion% her father% >ederico N. Salacion% ?r.% a certain ?oseph A(uilar and a certain iberato /andulio% 'ho (a,e the follo'in( testimony Maren too her first year hi(h school in St. /arys Academy in Pasay !ity but has recently transferred to Arellano ni,ersity for her second year. *n the afternoon of >ebruary $% 100% Maren 'as at the Pla9a >air /aati !inema S+uare% 'ith her friend dna -an(ile 'hilin( a'ay her free time. At about 33= p.m. 'hile she 'as finishin( her snac on a concrete bench in front of Pla9a >air% an American approached her. She 'as then alone because dna -an(ile had already left% and she 'as about to (o home. "-SN% Au(. 15% 100% pp. 2 to 5& -he American ased her name and introduced himself as :re( ;artelli. Ce sat beside her 'hen he taled to her. Ce said he 'as a /ath teacher and told her that he has a sister 'ho is a nurse in Ne' @or. Cis sister alle(edly has a dau(hter 'ho is about Marens a(e and 'ho 'as 'ith him in his house alon( Malayaan A,enue. "-SN% Au(. 15% 100% pp. $< 5&. -he American ased Maren 'hat 'as her fa,orite subBect and she told him its Pilipino. Ce then in,ited her to (o 'ith him to his house 'here she could teach Pilipino to his niece. Ce e,en (a,e her a stuffed toy to persuade her to teach his niece. " +d .% pp.5<6& -hey 'aled from Pla9a >air alon( Pason( -amo% turnin( ri(ht to reach the defendants house alon( Malayaan A,enue. "+d .% p.6& hen they reached the apartment house% Maren notices that defendants alle(ed niece 'as not outside the house but defendant told her maybe his niece 'as inside. hen Maren did not see the alle(ed niece inside the house% defendant told her maybe his niece 'as upstairs% and in,ited Maren to (o upstairs. " +d .% p. 7& pon enterin( the bedroom defendant suddenly loced the door. Maren became ner,ous because his niece 'as not there. #efendant (ot a piece of cotton cord and tied Marens hands 'ith it% and then he undressed her. Maren cried for help but defendant stran(led her. Ce too a pacin( tape and he co,ered her mouth 'ith it and he circled it around her head. "+d .% p. 7& -hen% defendant suddenly pushed Maren to'ards the bed 'hich 'as Bust near the door. Ce tied her feet and hands spread apart to the bed posts. Ce nelt in front of her and inserted his fin(er in her se) or(an. She felt se,ere pain. She tried to shout but no sound could come out because there 'ere tapes on her mouth. hen defendant 'ithdre' his fin(er it 'as full of blood and Maren felt more pain after the 'ithdra'al of the fin(er. "+d .% p.& Ce then (ot a ?ohnsons ;aby il and he applied it to his se) or(an as 'ell as to her se) or(an. After that he forced his se) or(an into her but he 'as not able to do so. hile he 'as doin( it% Maren found it difficult to breathe and she perspired a lot 'hile feelin( se,ere pain. She merely presumed that he 'as able to insert his se) or(an a little% because she could not see. Maren could not recall ho' lon( the defendant 'as in that position. " +d .% pp. <0& After that% he stood up and 'ent to the bathroom to 'ash. Ce also told Maren to tae a sho'er and he untied her hands. Maren could only hear the sound of the 'ater 'hile the defendant% she presumed% 'as in the bathroom 'ashin( his se) or(an. hen she too a
sho'er more blood came out from her. *n the meantime% defendant chan(ed the mattress because it 'as full of blood. After the sho'er% Maren 'as allo'ed by defendant to sleep. She fell asleep because she (ot tired cryin(. -he incident happened at about $== p.m. Maren had no 'ay of determinin( the e)act time because defendant remo,ed her 'atch. #efendant did not care to (i,e her food before she 'ent to sleep. Maren 'oe up at about == ocloc the follo'in( mornin(. "+d .% pp. 0<1=& -he follo'in( day% >ebruary 5% 100% a Sunday% after breafast of biscuit and coe at about 3= to 0== a.m. defendant raped Maren 'hile she 'as still bleedin(. >or lunch% they also too biscuit and coe. She 'as raped for the second time at about 12== to 2== p.m. *n the e,enin(% they had rice for dinner 'hich defendant had stored do'nstairsH it 'as he 'ho cooed the rice that is 'hy it loos lie lu(a'. >or the third time% Maren 'as raped a(ain durin( the ni(ht. #urin( those three times defendant succeeded in insertin( his se) or(an but she could not say 'hether the or(an 'as inserted 'holly. Maren did not see any firearm or any bladed 'eapon. -he defendant did not tie her hands and feet nor put a tape on her mouth anymore but she did not cry for help for fear that she mi(ht be illedH besides% all those 'indo's and doors 'ere closed. And e,en if she shouted for help% nobody 'ould hear her. She 'as so afraid that if somebody 'ould hear her and 'ould be able to call a police% it 'as still possible that as she 'as still inside the house% defendant mi(ht ill her. ;esides% the defendant did not lea,e that Sunday% rulin( out her chance to call for help. At ni(httime he slept 'ith her a(ain. "-SN% Au(. 15% 100% pp. 12<1$& n >ebruary 6% 100% /onday% Maren 'as raped three times% once in the mornin( for thirty minutes after breafast of biscuitsH a(ain in the afternoonH and a(ain in the e,enin(. At first% Maren did not no' that there 'as a 'indo' because e,erythin( 'as co,ered by a carpet% until defendant opened the 'indo' for around fifteen minutes or less to let some air in% and she found that the 'indo' 'as co,ered by styrofoam and ply'ood. After that% he a(ain closed the 'indo' 'ith a hammer and he put the styrofoam% ply'ood% and carpet bac. "+d .% pp. 1$<15& -hat /onday e,enin(% Maren had a chance to call for help% althou(h defendant left but ept the door closed. She 'ent to the bathroom and sa' a small 'indo' co,ered by styrofoam and she also spotted a small hole. She stepped on the bo'l and she cried for help throu(h the hole. She cried 6 /aa%a na po -ayo sa a-in. T!l!n(an nyo a-on( ma-ala*as dito. 7inidnap a-o8 Somebody heard her. *t 'as a 'oman% probably a nei(hbor% but she (ot an(ry and said she 'as istor*o. Maren pleaded for help and the 'oman told her to sleep and she 'ill call the police. She finally fell asleep but no policeman came. "-SN% Au(. 15% 100% pp. 15<16& She 'oe up at 6== ocloc the follo'in( mornin(% and she sa' defendant in bed% this time sleepin(. She 'aited for him to 'ae up. hen he 'oe up% he a(ain (ot some food but he al'ays ept the door loced. As usual% she 'as merely fed 'ith biscuit and coe. n that day% >ebruary 7% 100% she 'as a(ain raped three times. -he first at about 63= to 7== a.m.% the second at about 3= 0==% and the third 'as after lunch at 12== noon. After he had raped her for the second time he left but only for a short 'hile. pon his return% he cau(ht her shoutin( for help but he did not understand 'hat she 'as shoutin( about. After she 'as raped the third time% he left the house. "-SN% Au(. 15% 100% pp. 16<17& She a(ain 'ent to the bathroom and shouted for help. After shoutin( for about fi,e minutes% she heard many ,oices. -he ,oices 'ere asin( for her name and she (a,e her name as Maren Sal,acion. After a 'hile% she heard a ,oice of a 'oman sayin( they 'ill Bust call the police. -hey 'ere also tellin( her to chan(e her clothes. She 'ent from the bathroom to the room but she did not chan(e her clothes bein( afraid that should the nei(hbors call the police and the defendant see her in different clothes% he mi(ht ill her. At that time she 'as 'earin( a -
-he issues raised and the ar(uments articulated by the parties boil do'n to t'o /ay this !ourt entertain the instant petition despite the fact that ori(inal Burisdiction in petitions for declaratory relief rests 'ith the lo'er court She Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= and Section of R.A. 6$26% as amended by P.#. 12$6% other'ise no'n as the >orei(n !urrency #eposit Act be made applicable to a forei(n transient Petitioners a,er as heretofore stated that Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= pro,idin( that >orei(n currency deposits shall be e)empt from attachment% (arnishment% or any other order or process of any court% le(islati,e body% (o,ernment a(ency or any administrati,e body 'hatsoe,er. should be adBud(ed as unconstitutional on the (rounds that 1.& it has taen a'ay the ri(ht of petitioners to ha,e the ban deposit of defendant :re( ;artelli y Northcott (arnished to satisfy the Bud(ment rendered in petitioners fa,or in ,iolation of substanti,e due process (uaranteed by the !onstitutionH 2.& it has (i,en forei(n currency depositors an undue fa,or or a class pri,ile(e n ,iolation of the e+ual protection clause of the !onstitutionH 3.& it has pro,ided a safe ha,en for criminals lie the herein respondent :re( ;artelli y Northcott since criminal could escape ci,il liability for their 'ron(ful acts by merely con,ertin( their money to a forei(n currency and depositin( it in a forei(n currency deposit account 'ith an authori9ed banH and $.& -he /onetary ;oard% in issuin( Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= has e)ceeded its dele(ated +uasi< le(islati,e po'er 'hen it too a'ay a.& the plaintiffs substanti,e ri(ht to ha,e the claim sou(ht to be enforced by the ci,il action secured by 'ay of the 'rit of preliminary attachment as (ranted by Rule 57 of the Re,ised Rules of !ourtH b.& the plaintiffs substanti,e ri(ht to ha,e the Bud(ment credit satisfied by 'ay of the 'rit of e)ecution out of the ban deposit of the Bud(ment debtor as (ranted to the Bud(ment creditor by Rule 30 of the Re,ised Rules of !ourt% 'hich is beyond its po'er to do so. n the other hand% respondent !entral ;an% in its !omment alle(es that the /onetary ;oard in issuin( Section 113 of !; !ircular No. 06= did not e)ceed its po'er or authority because the subBect Section is copied ,erbatim from a portion of R.A. No. 6$26 as amended by P.#. 12$6. Cence% it 'as not the /onetary ;oard that (rants e)emption from attachment or (arnishment to forei(n currency deposits% but the la' "R.A. 6$26 as amended& itselfH that it does not ,iolate the substanti,e due process (uaranteed by the !onstitution because a.& it 'as based on a la'H b.& the la' seems to be reasonableH c.& it is enforced accordin( to re(ular methods of procedureH and d.& it applies to all members of a class. )pandin(% the !entral ;an saidH that one reason for e)emptin( the forei(n currency deposits from attachment% (arnishment or any other order process of any court% is to assure the de,elopment and speedy (ro'th of the >orei(n !urrency #eposit System and the ffshore ;anin( System in the PhilippinesH that another reason is to encoura(e the inflo' of forei(n currency deposits into the banin( institutions thereby placin( such institutions more in a position to properly channel the same to loans and in,estments in the Philippines% thus directly contributin( to the economic de,elopment of the countryH that the subBect section is bein( enforced accordin( to the re(ular methods of procedureH and that it applies to all currency deposits made by any person and therefore does not ,iolate the e+ual protection clause of the !onstitution. Respondent !entral ;an further a,ers that the +uestioned pro,ision is needed to promote the public interest and the (eneral 'elfareH that the State cannot Bust stand idly by 'hile a considerable se(ment of the society suffers from economic distressH that the State had to tae some measures to encoura(e economic de,elopmentH and that in so doin( persons and property may be subBected to some inds of restraints or burdens to secure the (eneral 'elfare or public interest. Respondent !entral ;an also alle(es that Rule 30 and Rule 57 of the Re,ised Rules of !ourt pro,ide that some properties are e)empted from e)ecutionLattachment especially pro,ided by la' and R.A. No. 6$26 as amended is such a la'% in that it specifically pro,ides% amon( others% that forei(n currency deposits shall be e)empted from attachment% (arnishment% or any other order or process of any court% le(islati,e body% (o,ernment a(ency or any administrati,e body 'hatsoe,er. >or its part% respondent !hina ;anin( !orporation% aside from (i,in( reasons similar to that of respondent !entral ;an% also stated that respondent !hina ;an is not unmindful of the inhuman sufferin(s e)perienced by the minor Maren . Sal,acion from the beastly hands of :re( ;artelliH that it is not only too 'illin( to release the dollar deposit of ;artelli 'hich may perhaps partly miti(ate the sufferin(s petitioner has under(oneH but it is restrained from doin( so in ,ie' of R.A. No. 6$26 and Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06=H and that despite the harsh effect to these la's on petitioners% !;! has no other alternati,e but to follo' the same. -his court finds the petition to be partly meritorious. Petitioner deser,es to recei,e the dama(es a'arded to her by the court. ;ut this petition for declaratory relief can only be entertained and treated as a petition for mandamus to re+uire respondents to honor and comply 'ith the 'rit of e)ecution in !i,il !ase No. 0<321$. -he !ourt has no ori(inal and e)clusi,e Burisdiction o,er a petition for declatory relief. Co'e,er% e)ceptions to this rule ha,e been reco(ni9ed. -hus% 'here the petition has farilipino lan(ua(e as re+uested by the American% trustin(ly 'ent 'ith said stran(er to his apartment% and there she 'as raped by said American tourist :re( ;artelli. Not once% but ten times. She 'as detained therein for four "$& days. -his American tourist 'as able to escape from the Bail and a,oid punishment. n the other hand% the child% ha,in( recei,ed a fa,orable Bud(ment in the !i,il !ase for dama(es in the amount of more than P1%===%===.==% 'hich amount could alle,iate the humiliation% an)iety% and besmirched reputation she had suffered and may continue to suffer for a lon(% lon( timeH and no'in( that this person 'ho had 'ron(ed her has the money% could not% ho'e,er (et the a'ard of dama(es because of this unreasonable la'. -his +uestioned la'% therefore maes futile the fa,orable Bud(ment and a'ard of dama(es that she and her parents fully deser,e. As stated by the trial court in its decision% *ndeed% after hearin( the testimony of Maren% the !ourt belie,es that it 'as indoubtedly a shocin( and traumatic e)perience she had under(one 'hich could haunt her mind for a lon(% lon( time% the mere recall of 'hich could mae her feel so humiliated% as in fact she had been actually humiliated once 'hen she 'as refused admission at the Abad Santos Ci(h School% Arellano ni,ersity% 'here she sou(ht to transfer from another school% simply because the school authorities of the said Ci(h School learned about 'hat happened to her and alle(edly feared that they mi(ht be implicated in the case.
))) -he reason for imposin( e)emplary or correcti,e dama(es is due to the 'anton and bestial manner defendant had committed the acts of rape durin( a period of serious ille(al detention of his hapless ,ictim% the minor Maren Sal,acion 'hose only fault 'as in her bein( so nai,e and credulous to belie,e easily that defendant% an American national% could not ha,e such a bestial desire on her nor capable of committin( such heinous crime. ;ein( only 12 years old 'hen that unfortunate incident happened% she has ne,er heard of an old >ilipino ada(e that in e,ery forest there is a snae% ))). *f Marens sad fate had happened to anybodys o'n in% it 'ould be difficult for him to fathom ho' the incenti,e for forei(n currency deposit could be more important than his childs ri(ht to said a'ard of dama(esH in this case% the ,ictims claim for dama(es from this alien 'ho had the (all to 'ron( a child of tender years of a country 'here he is mere ,isitor. -his further illustrates the fla' in the +uestioned pro,isions. *t is 'orth mentionin( that R.A. No. 6$26 'as enacted in 103 or at a time 'hen the countrys economy 'as in a shamblesH 'hen forei(n in,estments 'ere minimal and presumably% this 'as the reason 'hy said statute 'as enacted. ;ut the realities of the present times sho' that the country has reco,ered economicallyH and e,en if not% the +uestioned la' still denies those entitled to due process of la' for bein( unreasonable and oppressi,e. -he intention of the +uestioned la' may be (ood 'hen enacted. -he la' failed to anticipate the in+uitous effects producin( outri(ht inBustice and ine+uality such as as the case before us. *t has thus been said that< ;ut * also no'% that la's and institutions must (o hand in hand 'ith the pro(ress of the human mind. As that becomes more de,eloped% more enli(htened% as ne' disco,eries are made% ne' truths are disclosed and manners and opinions chan(e 'ith the chan(e of circumstances% institutions must ad,ance also% and eep pace 'ith the times e mi(ht as 'ell re+uire a man to 'ear still the coat 'hich fitted him 'hen a boy% as ci,ili9ed society to remain e,er under the re(imen of their barbarous ancestors. *n his comment% the Solicitor :eneral correctly opined% thus 4-he present petition has farorei(n currency deposits shall be e)empt fr om attachment% (arnishment% or any other order or process of any court% le(islati,e body% (o,ernment a(ency or any administrati,e body 'hatsoe,er. !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= 'as issued pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6$26 Sec. 7. Rules and Re(ulations. -he /onetary ;oard of the !entral ;an shall promul(ate such rules and re(ulations as may be necessary to carry out the pro,isions of this Act 'hich shall tae effect after the publication of such rules and re(ulations in the fficial :a9ette and in a n e'spaper of national circulation for at least once a 'ee for three consecuti,e 'ees. *n case the !entral ;an promul(ates ne' rules and re(ulations decreasin( the ri(hts of depositors% the rules and re(ulations at the time the deposit 'as made shall (o,ern. -he aforecited Section 113 'as copied from Section of Republic Act No. 6$26. As amended by P.#. 12$6% thus Sec. . Secrecy of >orei(n !urrency #eposits. << All forei(n currency deposits authori9ed under this Act% as amended by Presidential #ecree No. 1=35% as 'ell as forei(n currency deposits authori9ed under Presidential #ecree No. 1=3$% are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and% e)cept upon the 'ritten permission of the depositor% in no instance shall such forei(n currency deposits be e)amined% in+uired or looed into by any person% (o,ernment official% bureau or office 'hether Budicial or administrati,e or le(islati,e or any other entity 'hether public or pri,ate Pro,ided% ho'e,er% that said forei(n currency deposits shall be e)empt from attachment% (arnishment% or any other order or process of any court% le(islati,e body% (o,ernment a(ency or any administrati,e body 'hatsoe,er. -he purpose of P# 12$6 in accordin( protection a(ainst attachment% (arnishment and other court process to forei(n currency deposits is stated in its 'hereases% vi: . CRAS% under Republic Act No. 6$26% as amended by Presidential #ecree No. 1=35% certain Philippine banin( institutions and branches of forei(n bans are authori9ed to accept deposits in forei(n currencyH CRAS% under pro,isions of Presidential #ecree No. 1=3$ authori9in( the establishment of an offshore banin( system in the Philippines% offshore banin( units are also authori9ed to recei,e forei(n currency deposits in certain casesH CRAS% in order to assure the de,elopment and speedy (ro'th of the >orei(n !urrency #eposit System and the ffshore ;anin( System in the Philippines% certain incenti,es 'ere pro,ided for under the t'o Systems such as confidentiality subBect to certain e)ceptions and ta) e)emptions on the interest income of depositors 'ho are nonresidents and are not en(a(ed in trade or business in the PhilippinesH CRAS% main( absolute the protecti,e cloa of confidentiality o,er such forei(n currency deposits% e)emptin( such deposits from ta)% and (uaranteein( the ,ested ri(ht of depositors 'ould better encoura(e the inflo' of forei(n currency deposits into the banin( institutions authori9ed to accept such deposits in the Philippines thereby placin( such institutions more in a position to properly channel the same to loans and in,estments in the Philippines% thus directly contributin( to the economic de,elopment of the countryH
-hus% one of the principal purposes of the protection accorded to forei(n currency deposits is to assure the de,elopment and speedy (ro'th of the >orei(n !urrency #eposit system and the ffshore ;anin( in the Philippines "3rd hereas&. -he ffshore ;anin( System 'as established by P# No. 1=3$. *n turn% the purposes of P# No. 1=3$ are as follo's CRAS% conditions conduci,e to the establishment of an offshore banin( system% such as political stability% a (ro'in( economy and ade+uate communication facilities% amon( others% e)ist in the PhilippinesH CRAS% it is in the interest of de,elopin( countries to ha,e as 'ide access as possible to the sources of capital funds for economic de,elopmentH CRAS% an offshore banin( system based in the Philippines 'ill be ad,anta(eous and beneficial to the country by increasin( our lins 'ith forei(n lenders% facilitatin( the flo' of desired in,estments into the Philippines% creatin( employment opportunities and e)pertise in international finance% and contributin( to the national de,elopment effort. CRAS% the (eo(raphical location% physical and human resources% and other positi,e factors pro,ide the Philippines 'ith the clear potential to de,elop as another financial center in AsiaH n the other hand% the >orei(n !urrency #eposit system 'as created by P# No. 1 =35. *ts purpose are as follo's CRAS% the establishment of an offshore banin( system in the Philippines has been authori9ed under a separate decreeH CRAS% a number of local commercial bans% as depository ban under the >orei(n !urrency #eposit Act "RA No. 6$26&% ha,e the resources and mana(erial competence to more acti,ely en(a(e in forei(n e)chan(e transactions and participate in the (rant of forei(n currency loans to resident corporations and firmsH CRAS% it is timely to e)pand the forei(n currency lendin( authority of the said depository bans under RA 6$26 and apply to their transactions the same ta)es as 'ould be applicable to transaction of the proposed offshore banin( unitsH *t is e,ident from the abo,e Jhereas clausesK that the ffshore ;anin( System and the >orei(n !urrency #eposit System 'ere desi(ned to dra' deposits from forei(n lenders and in,estors "Dide second hereas of P# No. 1=3$H third hereas of P# No. 1=35&. *t is these depositors that are induced by the t'o la's and (i,en protection and incenti,es by them. b,iously% the forei(n currency deposit made by a transient or a tourist is not the ind of deposit encoura(e by P# Nos. 1=3$ and 1=35 and (i,en incenti,es and protection by said la's because such depositor stays only for a fe' days in the country and% therefore% 'ill maintain his deposit in the ban only for a short time. Respondent :re( ;artelli% as stated% is Bust a tourist or a transient. Ce deposited his dollars 'ith respondent !hina ;anin( !orporation only for safeeepin( durin( his temporary stay in the Philippines. >or the reasons stated abo,e% the Solicitor :eneral thus submits that the dollar deposit of respondent :re( ;artelli is not entitled to the protection of Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= and P# No. 12$6 a(ainst attachment% (arnishment or other court processes. *n fine% the application of the la' depends on the e)tent of its Bustice. ,entually% if 'e rule that the +uestioned Section 113 of !entral ;an !ircular No. 06= 'hich e)empts from attachment% (arnishment% or any other order or process of any court. e(islati,e body% (o,ernment a(ency or any administrati,e body 'hatsoe,er% is applicable to a forei(n transient% inBustice 'ould result especially to a citi9en a((rie,ed by a forei(n (uest lie accused :re( ;artelli. -his 'ould ne(ate Article 1= of the Ne' !i,il !ode 'hich pro,ides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of la's% it is presumed that the la'main( body intended ri(ht and Bustice to pre,ail . Nin(!no non de!e enri$!ecerse torti:er:mente con damo de otro. Simply stated% 'hen the statute is silent or ambi(uous% this is one of those fundamental solutions that 'ould respond to the ,ehement ur(e of conscience. "Padilla vs. Padilla% 7$ Phil. 377& *t 'ould be unthinable% that the +uestioned Section 113 of !entral ;an No. 06= 'ould be used as a de,ice by accused :re( ;artelli for 'ron(doin(% and in so doin(% ac+uittin( the (uilty at the e)pense of the innocent. !all it 'hat it may but is there no conflict of le(al policy here #ollar a(ainst Peso pholdin( the final and e)ecutory Bud(ment of the lo'er court a(ainst the !entral ;an !ircular protectin( the forei(n depositor Shieldin( or protectin( the dollar deposit of a transient alien depositor a(ainst inBustice to a national and ,ictim of a crime -his situation calls for fairness le(al tyranny. e definitely cannot ha,e both 'ays and rest in the belief that 'e ha,e ser,ed the ends of Bustice. IN *I"<
6$26 are hereby held to be *NAPP*!A; to this case because of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents are hereby RF*R# to !/P@ 'ith the 'rit of e)ecution issued in !i,il !ase No. 0<321$% Maren Sal,acion% et al. vs. :re( ;artelli y Northcott% by ;ranch !E*D% R-! /aati and to RAS to petitioners the dollar deposit of respondent :re( ;artelli y Northcott in such amount as 'ould satisfy the Bud(ment. S R#R#.
G.R. No. 18880, Nove:6er 17, 015 AL"LI C. AL#A%*AR, G"N"RAL #ANAG"R ISA
-his is a petition for certiorari under Rule 6$ of the Re,ised Rules of !ourt seein( to re,erse and set aside the #ecember 20% 2=11 #ecision 1 of the !ommission on Audit "!A& and the April $% 2=1$ Resolution2 of the !A n ;ane 'hich affirmed the ctober 2% 2=1= #ecision 3 of the !A Re(ional ffice No. *E 9'OA Re(ional Office; re(ardin( Notices of #isallo'ances "NDs&. *sabela ater #istrict " +"A
Particulars
Amount
2==6<==1 "2==5&7
Payment of salary increase for the :/% P73%755.== *SAA#% from P2=%23.== to P35%57$<== per month% from Au(ust to #ecember% 2==5% 'ithout le(al basis.
2==6<==2"2==5&
Payment of le(al retainer8s fee at P$%===.== P$%===.== per month for the period from of ?anuary to #ecember 2==5 'ithout proper authority from the ffice of the :o,ernment !orporate !ounsel ":!!& and the 'ritten concurrence of the !A.
2==6<==3"2==5&0
Payment of honorarium to :!! a'yer P2$%===.== 'ithout e)press authority from the :!!% and proof of ser,ice rendered to the *SAA#
2==6<==$"2==5&1=
Payment of Representation and P6%===.== -ransportation Allo'ances "RA-A& to the :/% *SAA# o,er and abo,e the authori9ed rate of the #epartment of ;ud(et and /ana(ement "#;/& under !orporate ;ud(et !ircular "!;!& No. 1 and National ;ud(et !ircular "N;!& No. $0
n April 26% 2==7% petitioner filed an appeal 'ith the Re(ional !luster #irector% !luster *llortunato :. perario ?r. " Atty. Operario&% 'ere in accordance 'ith the procedure set forth by la'. !onse+uently% the payments made to them 'ere appropriate.12 T2e CA Region+ 44i3e Ruing
n ctober 2% 2=1=% the !A Re(ional ffice rendered a decision affirmin( 'ith modification the assailed N#s. *t e)plained that the compensation of the :/s of local 'ater districts " &
n #ecember 20% 2=11% the !A rendered the assailed decision affirmin( the rulin( of the !A Re(ional ffice. *t stressed that before a pri,ate la'yer may be hired by the :!!% the 'ritten conformity of the :!! and the 'ritten concurrence of the !A must first be secured <'hich also applied in cases of contract rene'al. -he !A ruled that the payments to Atty. s(uerra from ?anuary to ctober
2==5 'ere improper because his ser,ices 'ere retained 'ithout the necessary conformity and concurrence of both the :!! and the !A. nly the retainership contract for a period of one year effecti,e on No,ember 1% 2==5 'as 'ith the conformity and concurrence of both the :!! and the !A. A((rie,ed% petitioner mo,ed for reconsideration of the decision but her motion 'as denied by the !A En Banc in its assailed resolution% dated April $% 2=1$. Cence% this present petition. ISS&"S
1K hether or not the disbursements under the N#s 'ere improper. 2K *n the e,ent the disbursements 'ere improper% 'hether or not petitioner liable to refund the same. Petitioner insists that her salary increase 'as proper because #s 'ere e)empt from the co,era(e of the SS as Section 23 of R.A. No. 026% a later la'% empo'ered the board of directors of #s to fi) the salary of its :/% thereby impliedly repealin( R.A. No. 675H that her salary 'as 'ithin the scale pro,ided by the ffice of the Philippine Association of ater #istricts% *nc.H and that she need not refund the alle(ed o,erpaid RA-A because she acted in (ood faith as she stopped claimin( the same after the N#s 'ere issued.15 Petitioner also claims that the payments to Atty. s(uerra from ?anuary to ctober 2==5 'ere ,alid because the :!! concurred 'ith the retainership contract for one year effecti,e from No,ember 1% 2==$. She faults the !A for belatedly actin( upon the re+uest for conformity. ie'ise% petitioner posits that the 'ritten concurrence of the !A only applies to the en(a(ement or hirin( of a pri,ate la'yer and not the rene'al of the retainership. She ar(ues that the retainership of Atty. s(uerra had been effected on a yearly basis startin( No,ember 1% 2==3% 'hich necessarily follo's that subse+uent rene'al should be in No,ember of the succeedin( year.16 Petitioner also faults the :!! for the delay in issuin( the necessary authority for Atty. perario% barin( that as early as 2==$ the board of directors of *SAA# already re+uested from the :!! the necessary authority% but it 'as (i,en only on ?uly 11% 2==6. She a,ers that denyin( the la'yers the remuneration for their ser,ices 'ill be tantamount to unBust enrichment.17 !itin( /endo:a v. 'OA 1 " /endo:a&% petitioner claims that she acted in (ood faith in main( all the disbursements and% therefore% she should not be made to refund them because they 'ere (i,en under an honest belief that the payees 'ere entitled to the said remunerations and these 'ere in consideration for their ser,ices rendered. Petitioner lie'ise prays for the issuance of a rit of Preliminary *nBunction andLor -R because she stands to suffer (ra,e inBustice and (reat irreparable inBury. *n its !omment%10 dated ?uly 2% 2=1$% the !A countered that #s 'ere co,ered by R.A. No. 675 or the SS. R.A. No. 026 did not e)pressly repeal it% and an implied repeal% as claimed by petitioner% 'as disfa,ored by la'. -he !A also contended that the rene'al of retainership contracts re+uired the 'ritten concurrence of the !A. *t is also insisted that the payments of honorarium made to Atty. perario 'ere improper because at the time he rendered his ser,ices% the :!! had yet to issue any authority. *t noted that the :!! appro,al and the !A concurrence 'ere re+uired to ensure that there 'as basis for the en(a(ement of a pri,ate la'yer. -he !A ar(ued that petitioner could not claim (ood faith because the case cited by her% allo'in( the defense of (ood faith% 'as premised on the fact that there 'as no prior case or rule that settled the applicability of R.A. No. 675 to #s. >inally% the !A opined that petitioner failed to state factual alle(ations to support the issuance of a 'rit of Preliminary *nBunction andLor -R. *n her Reply%2= dated /arch 13% 2=15% petitioner merely reiterated her pre,ious ar(uments. T2e Court@s Ruing
R.A. No. 675 co,ers local 'ater districts -he increase in the salary of the petitioner 'as correctly disallo'ed because it contra,ened the pro,isions of the SS. *n /endo:a%21 the !ourt ruled that the salaries of :/s of #s 'ere subBect to the pro,ision of the SS% to 'it -he Salary Standardi9ation a' applies to all (o,ernment positions% includin( those in (o,ernment
consistently pro,ided not only for the po'er to fi) compensation but also the a(ency8s or corporation8s e)emption from the Salary Standardi9ation a'. *f !on(ress had intended to e)empt 'ater utilities from the co,era(e of the Salary Standardi9ation a' and other la's on compensation and position classification% it could ha,e e)pressly pro,ided in Presidential #ecree No. 10 an e)emption clause similar to those pro,ided in the respecti,e charters of the Philippine Postal !orporation% -rade *n,estment and #e,elopment !orporation% and ;an of the Philippines% Social Security System% Small ;usiness :uarantee and >inance !orporation% :o,ernment Ser,ice *nsurance System% #e,elopment ;an of the Philippines% Come :uaranty !orporation% and the Philippine #eposit *nsurance !orporation. !on(ress could ha,e amended Section 23 of Presidential #ecree No. 10 to e)pressly pro,ide that the compensation of a (eneral mana(er is e)empted from the Salary Standardi9ation a'. Co'e,er% !on(ress did not. Section 23 'as amended to emphasi9e that the (eneral mana(er 4shall not be remo,ed from office% e)cept for cause and after due process.4 T2is oes not :e+n t2+t +ter utiities 3+nnot 4iB t2e 3o:pens+tion o4 t2eir respe3tive gener+ :+n+gers . Section 23 of
Presidential #ecree No. 10 clearly pro,ides that a 'ater utility8s board of directors has the po'er to define the duties and fi) the
compensation of a (eneral mana(er. Hoever, t2e 3o:pens+tion 4iBe :ust 6e in +33or+n3e it2 t2e position 3+ssi4i3+tion s/ste: uner t2e S++r/ St+n+riD+tion L+ . )))22 Petitioner claims that R.A. No. 026% bein( a later la'% repealed the SS. -he !ourt% ho'e,er% notes that R.A. No. 026 did not e)pressly repeal the SS. Neither did R.A. No. 026 impliedly repeal the SS because repeal by implication is not fa,ored by la' and is only resorted to in case of irreconcilable inconsistency and repu(nancy bet'een the ne' la' and the old la'.23 As clearly pointed out in /endo:a% there is no irreconcilable inconsistency bet'een R.A. No. 026 and the SS. *t is conceded thou(h that the board of directors has full discretion in fi)in( the salary of the :/% but it is al'ays subBect to the limits under the SS% unless the charter of the # e)empts it from the co,era(e of the said la'. "ng+ge:ents o4Att/. "sguerr+ +n Att/. per+rio ere un+ut2oriDe
!A !ircular No. 05<=11% dated #ecember $% 1005% pro,ides that in the e,ent that the need for the le(al ser,ices of a pri,ate la'yer cannot be a,oided or is Bustified under e)traordinary or e)ceptional circumstances% the 'ritten conformity and ac+uiescence of the :!! and the 'ritten concurrence of the !A shall first be secured. -he failure to secure the 'ritten concurrence maes the en(a(ement of the pri,ate la'yer or la' firm unauthori9ed.2$ *n the case at bench% petitioner does not deny that there 'as no 'ritten concurrence from the !A 'hen Atty. s(uerra% a pri,ate la'yer% rendered le(al ser,ices from ?anuary to ctober 2==5. She% instead% ar(ues that it is not mandatory to secure the 'ritten concurrence of !A because it only applies to the hirin( or employment of a la'yer and not the rene'al of a retainership contract. >urther% petitioner blames the !A because it belatedly acted on the re+uest of *SAA# for a 'ritten concurrence. -he ar(uments of petitioner fail to persuade. *SAA# first en(a(ed Atty. s(uerra under a retainership contract 25 for a period of one year effecti,e No,ember 1% 2==3% 'ith the 'ritten concurrence of the :!! and the !A. -he follo'in( year% another retainership contract 26 'as e)ecuted% effecti,e one year from No,ember 1% 2==$% 'ith the concurrence of the :!! *!t not t)e 'OA. A(ain% in the follo'in( year% a retainership contract27 'as e)ecuted for another one year effecti,e on No,ember 1% 2==5% 'ith the 'ritten concurrence of both the :!! and the !A. *SAA# en(a(ed Atty. s(uerra under a (eneral retainer for a specific len(th of time% 'hich 'as re(ularly rene'ed after its termination. ach rene'al constituted the hirin( of Atty. s(uerra because after the lapse of one year% the en(a(ement 'as terminatedH and each rene'al for another one
*n /endo:a % the !ourt e)cused the errin( officials therein from refundin( the amounts subBect of the N#% to 'it -he salaries petitioner /endo9a recei,ed 'ere fi)ed by the -alisay ater #istrict8s board of directors pursuant to Section 23 of the Presidential #ecree No. 10. Petitioner /endo9a had no hand in fi)in( the amount of compensation he recei,ed. /oreo,er% at the time petitioner /endo9a recei,ed the disputed amount in 2==5 and 2==6% there 'as no Burisprudence yet rulin( that 'ater utilities are not e)empted from the Salary Standardi9ation a'. Pursuant to de 1es!s v. 'ommission on A!dit, petitioner /endo9a recei,ed the disallo'ed salaries in (ood faith. Ce need not refund the disallo'ed amount. *n this case% the !ourt is of the ,ie' that the payment of the erroneous increase in petitioner8s salary 'as nonetheless made in (ood faith. -he increase 'as computed in accordance 'ith the scale pro,ided by the ffice of the Philippine Association of ater #istricts% *nc.% 'hich also made an erroneous opinion that R.A. No. 026 repealed the SS. >urther% at the time the disbursement 'as made% no cate(orical pronouncement% similar to /endo:a% that the #s are subBect to the pro,isions of the SS% had been issued. :ood faith% ho'e,er% cannot be appreciated in petitioner8s other disbursements. Petitioner no'in(ly appro,ed the payments to Atty. s(uerra and Atty. peraria in spite of the lac of the necessary appro,al by the (o,ernment offices concerned. >urther% petitioner8s failure to claim her e)cessi,e RA-A after the N#s 'ere issued does not e,ince (ood faith because% at that time% !;! No. 1 and N;! No. $0 already pro,ided for the allo'able RA-A to be (i,en to :/s of #s.
No basis for the issuance of a 'rit of inBunction *n 'ala%a( v. University of t)e P)ilippines isayas %3= the !ourt ruled that the ri(ht sou(ht to be protected must not be doubtful in order for an inBuncti,e relief to be issued% to 'it -o be entitled to a 'rit of preliminary inBunction% ))) the petitioners must establish the follo'in( re+uisites "a& the in,asion of the ri(ht sou(ht to be protected is material and substantialH "b& the ri(ht of the complainant is clear and unmistaableH and "c& there is an ur(ent and permanent necessity for the 'rit to pre,ent serious dama(e% ))) <2en t2e 3o:p+in+nt@s rig2t is t2us ou6t4u or ispute, 2e oes not 2+ve + 3e+r eg+ rig2t +n, t2ere4ore, t2e issu+n3e o4 inEun3tive reie4 is i:prope r. Cere% petitioner failed to sho' sufficient reasons to Bustify the issuance of the inBuncti,e relief. *t has been thorou(hly discussed that the disbursements 'ere 'ithout le(al basis as they either 'ere in e)cess of the limits pro,ided for by la' or 'ere issued 'ithout authority.
absol,ed from refundin( the amount paid in the increase of her salary. S R%"R"%.
G.R. No. 1089 %e3e:6er 11, 199 ANTNI A. #"CAN, petitioner, vs. C##ISSIN N A&%IT, responent. CA#PS, -R., J.:
Antonio A. /ecano% throu(h a petition for certiorari, sees to nullify the decision of the !ommission on Audit "!A% for bre,ity& embodied in its 7th *ndorsement% dated ?anuary 16% 1002% denyin( his claim for reimbursement under Section 600 of the Re,ised Administrati,e !ode "RA!&% as amended% in the total amount of P$=%31.==. Petitioner is a #irector ** of the National ;ureau o f *n,esti(ation "N;*&. Ce 'as hospitali9ed for cholecystitis from /arch 26% 100= to April 7% 100=% on account of 'hich he incurred medical and hospitali9ation e)penses% the total amount of 'hich he is claimin( from the !A. n /ay 11% 100=% in a memorandum to the N;* #irector% Alfredo S. im "#irector im% for bre,ity&% he re+uested reimbursement for his e)penses on the (round that he is entitled to the benefits under Section 6001 of the RA!% the pertinent pro,isions of 'hich read Sec. 600. Allo%ances in case of in0!ry, deat), or sic -ness inc!rred in performance of d!ty . hen a person in the ser,ice of the national (o,ernment of a pro,ince% city% municipality or municipal district is so inBured in the performance of duty as thereby to recei,e some actual physical hurt or 'ound% the proper Cead of #epartment may direct that absence durin( any period of disability thereby occasioned shall be on full pay% thou(h not more than si) months% and in such case he may in his discretion also authori9e the payment of the medical attendance% necessary transportation% subsistence and hospital fees of the inBured person. Absence in the case contemplated shall be char(ed first a(ainst ,acation lea,e% if any there be. ))) ))) ))) *n case of sicness caused by or connected directly 'ith the performance of some act in the line of duty% the #epartment head may in his discretion authori9e the payment of the necessary hospital fees. #irector im then for'arded petitioner8s claim% in a 1st *ndorsement dated ?une 22% 100=% to the Secretary of ?ustice% alon( 'ith the comment% bearin( the same date% of :erarda :alan(% !hief% # of the N;*% 4recommendin( fa,orable action thereof4. >indin( petitioner8s illness to be ser,iceranlin /. #rilon "Secretary #rilon% for bre,ity& statin( that 4the issuance of the Administrati,e !ode did not operate to repeal or abre(ate in its entirety the Re,ised Administrati,e !ode% includin( the particular Section 600 of the latterG. n /ay 1=% 1001% #irector im% under a 5th *ndorsement transmitted ane' /ecano8s claim to then ndersecretary ;ello for fa,orable consideration. nder a 6th *ndorsement% dated ?uly 2% 1001% Secretary #rilon for'arded petitioner8s claim to the !A !hairman% recommendin( payment of the same. !A !hairman ufemio !. #omin(o% in his 7th *ndorsement of ?anuary 16% 1002% ho'e,er% denied petitioner8s claim on the (round that Section 600 of the RA! had been repealed by the Administrati,e !ode of 107% solely for the reason that the same section 'as not restated nor reebruary 7% 1002% 'ith the ad,ice that petitioner 4ele,ate the matter to the Supreme !ourt if he so desiresG. n the sole issue of 'hether or not the Administrati,e !ode of 107 repealed or abro(ated Section 600 of the RA!% this petition 'as brou(ht for the consideration of this !ourt. Petitioner anchors his claim on Section 600 of the RA!% as amended% and on the aforementioned pinion No. 73% S. 1001 of Secretary #rilon. Ce further maintains that in the e,ent that a claim is filed 'ith the mployees8 !ompensation !ommission% as su((ested by respondent% he 'ould still not be barred from filin( a claim under the subBect section. -hus% the resolution of 'hether or not there 'as a repeal of the Re,ised Administrati,e !ode of 1017 'ould decide the fate of petitioner8s claim for reimbursement. -he !A% on the other hand% stron(ly maintains that the enactment of the Administrati,e !ode of 107 ")ec. rder No. 202& operated to re,oe or supplant in its entirety the Re,ised Administrati,e !ode of 1017. -he !A claims that from the 4'hereas4 clauses of the ne' Administrati,e !ode% it can be (leaned that it 'as the intent of the le(islature to repeal the old !ode. /oreo,er% the !A +uestions the applicability of the aforesaid opinion of the Secretary of ?ustice in decidin( the matter. astly% the !A contends that employment< related sicness% inBury or death is ade+uately co,ered by the mployees8 !ompensation Pro(ram under P.#. 626% such that to allo' simultaneous reco,ery of benefits under both la's on account of the same contin(ency 'ould be unfair and unBust to the :o,ernment. -he +uestion of 'hether a particular la' has been repealed or not by a subse+uent la' is a matter of le(islati,e intent. -he la'maers may e)pressly repeal a la' by incorporatin( therein a repealin( pro,ision 'hich e)pressly and specifically cites the particular la' or la's% and portions thereof% that are intended to be repealed. 3 A declaration in a statute% usually in its repealin( clause% that a particular and specific la'% identified by its number or title% is repealed is an e)press repealH all others are implied repeals.$ *n the case of the t'o Administrati,e !odes in +uestion% the ascertainment of 'hether or not it 'as the intent of the le(islature to supplant the old !ode 'ith the ne' !ode partly depends on the scrutiny of the repealin( clause of the ne' !ode. -his pro,ision is found in Section 27% ;oo D** ">inal Pro,isions& of the Administrati,e !ode of 107 'hich reads Sec. 27. Repealin( 'la!se. All la's% decrees% orders% rules and re(ulations% or portions thereof% inconsistent 'ith this !ode are hereby repealed or modified accordin(ly.
-he +uestion that should be ased is hat is the nature of this repealin( clause *t is certainly not an e)press repealin( clause because it fails to identify or desi(nate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. 5 Rather% it is an e)ample of a (eneral repealin( pro,ision% as stated in pinion No. 73% S. 1001. *t is a clause 'hich predicates the intended repeal under the condition that substantial conflict must be found in e)istin( and prior acts. -he failure to add a specific repealin( clause indicates that the intent 'as not to repeal any e)istin( la'% unless an irreconcilable inconcistency and repu(nancy e)ist in the terms of the ne' and old la's. 6 -his latter situation falls under the cate(ory of an implied repeal. Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that 'here a statute of later date clearly re,eals an intention on the part of the le(islature to abro(ate a prior act on the subBect% that intention must be (i,en effect. 7 Cence% before there can be a repeal% there must be a clear sho'in( on the part of the la'maer that the intent in enactin( the ne' la' 'as to abro(ate the old one. -he intention to repeal must be clear and manifestH other'ise% at least% as a (eneral rule% the later act is to be construed as a continuation of% and not a substitute for% the first act and 'ill continue so far as the t'o acts are the same from the time of the first enactment.0 -here are t'o cate(ories of repeal by implication. -he first is 'here pro,isions in the t'o acts on the same subBect matter are in an irreconcilable conflict% the later act to the e)tent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. -he second is if the later act co,ers the 'hole subBect of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute% it 'ill operate to repeal the earlier la'.1= *mplied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency taes place 'hen the t'o statutes co,er the same subBect matterH they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible 'ith each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmoni9edH and both cannot be (i,en effect% that is% that one la' cannot be enforced 'ithout nullifyin( the other.11 !omparin( the t'o !odes% it is apparent that the ne' !ode does not co,er nor attempt to co,er the entire subBect matter of the old !ode. -here are se,eral matters treated in the old !ode 'hich are not found in the ne' !ode% such as the pro,isions on notaries public% the lea,e la'% the public bondin( la'% military reser,ations% claims for sicness benefits under Section 600% and still others. /oreo,er% the !A failed to demonstrate that the pro,isions of the t'o !odes on the matter of the subBect claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. *n fact% there can be no such conflict because the pro,ision on sicness benefits of the nature bein( claimed by petitioner has not been restated in the Administrati,e !ode of 107. Co'e,er% the !A 'ould ha,e s consider that the fact that Section 600 'as not restated in the Administrati,e !ode of 107 meant that the same section had been repealed. *t further maintained that to allo' the particular pro,isions not restated in the ne' !ode to continue in force ar(ues a(ainst the !ode itself. -he !A anchored this ar(ument on the 'hereas clause of the 107 !ode% 'hich states CRAS% the effecti,eness of the :o,ernment 'ill be enhanced by a ne' Administrati,e !ode 'hich incorporate in a !nified doc!ment the maBor structural% functional and procedural principles and rules of (o,ernanceH and ))) ))) ))) *t ar(ues% in effect% that 'hat is contemplated is o nly one !ode the Administrati,e !ode of 107. -his contention is untenable. -he fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subBect matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act% since the ne' statute may merely be cumulati,e or a continuation of the old one. 12 hat is necessary is a manifest indication of le(islati,e purpose to repeal. 13 e come no' to the second cate(ory of repeal the enactment of a statute re,isin( or codifyin( the former la's on the 'hole subBect matter. -his is only possible if the re,ised statute or code 'as intended to co,er the 'hole subBect to be a complete and perfect system in itself. *t is the rule that a subse+uent statute is deemed to repeal a prior la' if the former re,ises the 'hole subBect matter of the former statute.1$ hen both intent and scope clearly e,idence the idea of a repeal% then all parts and pro,isions of the prior act that are omitted from the re,ised act are deemed repealed.15 >urthermore% before there can be an implied repeal under this cate(ory% it must be the clear intent of the le(islature that the later act be the substitute to the prior act.16 Accordin( to pinion No. 73% S. 1001 of the Secretary of ?ustice% 'hat appears clear is the intent to co,er only those aspects of (o,ernment that pertain to administration% or(ani9ation and procedure% understandably because of the many chan(es that transpired in the (o,ernment structure since the enactment of the RA! decades of years a(o. -he !A challen(es the 'ei(ht that this opinion carries in the determination of this contro,ersy inasmuch as the body 'hich had been entrusted 'ith the implementation of this particular pro,ision has already rendered its decision. -he !A relied on the rule in administrati,e la' enunciated in the case of "ison vs. Pan(ram!yen 17 that in the absence of palpable error or (ra,e abuse of discretion% the !ourt 'ould be loathe to substitute its o'n Bud(ment for that of the administrati,e a(ency entrusted 'ith the enforcement and implementation of the la'. -his 'ill not hold 'ater. -his principle is subBect to limitations. Administrati,e decisions may be re,ie'ed by the courts upon a sho'in( that the decision is ,itiated by fraud% imposition or mistae. 1 *t has been held that pinions of the Secretary and ndersecretary of ?ustice are material in the construction of statutes in pari materia .10 astly% it is a 'ellund&% ;oo *D of the abor !ode% as amended by P.#. 1021% e)pressly pro,ides that 4the payment of compensation under this -itle shall not bar the reco,ery of benefits as pro,ided for in Section 600 of the Re,ised Administrati,e !ode . . . 'hose benefits are administered by the system "meanin( SSS or :S*S& or by other a(encies of the (o,ernment.G
CR>R% premises considered% the !ourt resol,es to :RAN- the petitionH respondent is hereby ordered to (i,e due course to petitioner8s claim for benefits. No costs. S R#R#.
G.R. No. 18179 Nove:6er , 1997 %ANIL ". PARAS, petitioner, vs. C##ISSIN N "L"CTINS, responent. R"SL&T IN $RANCISC, J.:
Petitioner #anilo . Paras is the incumbent Punon( ;aran(ay of Pula% !abanatuan !ity 'ho 'on durin( the last re(ular baran(ay election in 100$. A petition for his recall as Punon( ;aran(ay 'as filed by the re(istered ,oters of the baran(ay. Actin( on the petition for recall% public respondent !ommission on lections "!/!& resol,ed to appro,e the petition% scheduled the petition si(nin( on ctober 1$% 1005% and set the recall election on No,ember 13% 1005. 1 At least 20.3=Q of the re(istered ,oters si(ned the petition% 'ell abo,e the 25Q re+uirement pro,ided by la'. -he !/!% ho'e,er% deferred the recall election in ,ie' of petitioner8s opposition. n #ecember 6% 1005% the !/! set ane' the recall election% this time on #ecember 16% 1005. -o pre,ent the holdin( of the recall election% petitioner filed before the Re(ional -rial !ourt of !abanatuan !ity a petition for inBunction% doceted as SP !i,il Action No. 225$% 'ith the trial court issuin( a temporary restrainin( order. After conductin( a summary hearin(% the trial court lifted the restrainin( order% dismissed the petition and re+uired petitioner and his counsel to e)plain 'hy they should not be cited for contempt for misrepresentin( that the baran(ay recall election 'as 'ithout !/! appro,al.2 *n a resolution dated ?anuary 5% 1006% the !/!% for the third time% reinally% recall election is potentially disrupti,e of the normal 'orin( of the local (o,ernment unit necessitatin( additional e)penses% hence the prohibition a(ainst the conduct of recall election one year immediately precedin( the re(!lar local election . -he proscription is due to the pro)imity of the ne)t re(ular election for the office of the local electi,e official concerned. -he electorate could choose the official8s replacement in the said election 'ho certainly has a lon(er tenure in office than a successor elected throu(h a recall election. *t 'ould% therefore% be more in eepin( 'ith the intent of the recall pro,ision of the !ode to construe re(!lar local election as one referrin( to an election 'here the office held by the local electi,e official sou(ht to be recalled 'ill be contested and be filled by the electorate. Ne,ertheless% recall at this time is no lon(er possible because of the limitation stated under Section 7$ "b& of the !ode considerin( that the ne)t re(ular election in,ol,in( the baran(ay office concerned is barely se,en "7& months a'ay% the same ha,in( been scheduled on
/ay 1007. 0 A!!R#*N:@% the petition is hereby dismissed for ha,in( become moot and academic. -he temporary restrainin( order issued by the !ourt on ?anuary 12% 1006% enBoinin( the recall election should be as it is hereby made permanent. S R#R#. G.R. Nos. L?50?08 Apri 1, 199 C##ISSIN"R $ INT"RNAL R"*"N&", petitioner, vs. "SS STAN%AR% "AST"RN, INC. +n TH" C&RT $ TAF APP"ALS, responents. NAR*ASA, J.:
*n t'o "2& cases appealed to it 1 by the pri,ate respondent% hereafter simply referred to as SS% the !ourt of -a) Appeals rendered Bud(ment sustainin( the decisions of the !ommissioner of *nternal Re,enue e)cepted to% sa,e 4the refund
"d& *nterest on deficiency. *nterest upon the amount determined as deficiency shall be assessed at the same time as the deficiency and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the !ommissioner of *nternal Re,enueH and shall be collected as a part of the ta)% at the rate of si) per centum per annum from the date prescribed for the payment of the ta) "or% if the ta) is paid in installments% from the date prescribed for the payment of the first installment& to the date the deficiency is assessedH Provided % -hat the amount that may be collected as interest on deficiency shall in no case e)ceed the amount correspondin( to a period of three years% the present pro,ision re(ardin( prescription to the contrary not'ithstandin(. -he fact is that% as respondent !ourt of -a) Appeals has stressed% as early as ?uly 15% 106=% the :o,ernment already had in its hands the sum of P221%=33.== representin( e)cess payment. Ca,in( been paid and recei,ed by mistae% as petitioner !ommissioner subse+uently acno'led(ed% that sum un+uestionably belon(ed to SS% and the :o,ernment had the obli(ation to return it to SS -hat acno'led(ment of the erroneous payment came some four "$& years after'ards in no'ise ne(ates or detracts from its actuality. -he obli(ation to return money mistaenly paid arises from the moment that payment is made% and not from the time that the payee admits the obli(ation to reimburse. -he obli(ation of the payee to reimburse an amount paid to him results from the mistae% not from the payee8s confession of the mistae or reco(nition of the obli(ation to reimburse. *n other 'ords% since the amount of P221%=33.== belon(in( to SS 'as already in the hands of the :o,ernment as of ?uly% 106=% althou(h the latter had no ri(ht 'hate,er to the amount and indeed 'as bound to return it to SS% it 'as neither le(ally nor lo(ically possible for SS thereafter to be considered a debtor of the :o,ernment in that amount of P221%=33.==H and 'hate,er other obli(ation SS mi(ht subse+uently incur in fa,or of the :o,ernment 'ould ha,e to be reduced by that sum% in respect of 'hich no interest could be char(ed. -o interpret the 'ords of the statute in such a manner as to sub,ert these truisms simply can not and should not be countenanced. 4Nothin( is better settled than that courts are not to (i,e 'ords a meanin( 'hich 'ould lead to absurd or unreasonable conse+uences. -hat is a principle that (oes bac to +n re Allen "2 Phil. 63=& decided on ctober 20% 10=3% 'here it 'as held that a literal interpretation is to be reBected if it 'ould be unBust or lead to absurd results.4 7 4Statutes should recei,e a sensible construction% such as 'ill (i,e effect to the le(islati,e intention and so as to a,oid an unBust or absurd conclusion.4 CR>R% the petition for re,ie' is #N*#% and the #ecision of the !ourt of -a) Appeals dated ctober 2% 1067 subBect of the petition is A>>*R/#% 'ithout pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 1110 Apri 10, 1997 C"SARI &RS&A, petitioner, vs. C&RT $ APP"ALS AN% P"PL" $ TH" PHILIPPIN"S, responents. !"LLSILL, J.:p
-his is a petition for re,ie' of the decision of the !ourt of Appeals 'hich affirmed the con,iction of petitioner by the Re(ional -rial !ourt of #a,ao !ity for ,iolation of Sec. 1 of !.A. No. 1$2% as amended by R.A. No. 6=5% other'ise no'n as 4 An Act to Re(!late t)e Use of Aliases4. 1 Petitioner !esario rsua 'as a !ommunity n,ironment and Natural Resources fficer assi(ned in Midapa'an% !otabato. n 0 /ay 100 the Pro,incial :o,ernor of !otabato re+uested the ffice of the mbudsman in /anila to conduct an in,esti(ation on a complaint for bribery% dishonesty% abuse of authority and (i,in( of un'arranted benefits by petitioner and other officials of the #epartment of n,ironment and Natural Resources. -he complaint 'as initiated by the San((unian( Panlala'i(an of !otabato throu(h a resolution ad,isin( the :o,ernor to report the in,ol,ement of petitioner and others in the ille(al cuttin( of maho(any trees and haulin( of ille(ally< cut lo(s in the area. 2 n 1 Au(ust 100 Atty. >rancis Palmones% counsel for petitioner% 'rote the ffice of the mbudsman in #a,ao !ity re+uestin( that he be furnished copy of the complaint a(ainst petitioner. Atty. Palmones then ased his client rsua to tae his letteror a clear understandin( of the purpose of !.A. No. 1$2 as amended% 'hich 'as alle(edly ,iolated by petitioner% and the surroundin( circumstances under 'hich the la' 'as enacted% the pertinent pro,isions thereof% its amendments and related statutes are herein cited. !.A. No. 1$2% 'hich 'as appro,ed on 7 No,ember 1036% and before its amendment by R.A. No. 6=5% is entitled An Act to Re(!late t)e Use of Aliases. *t pro,ides as follo's Sec. 1. )cept as a pseudonym for literary purposes% no person shall use any name different from the one 'ith 'hich he 'as christened or by 'hich he has been no'n since his childhood% or such substitute name as may ha,e been authori9ed by a competent court. -he name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or t'o surnames. Sec. 2. Any person desirin( to use an alias or aliases shall apply for authority therefor in proceedin(s lie those le(ally pro,ided to obtain Budicial authority for a chan(e of name. Separate proceedin(s shall be had for each alias% and each ne' petition shall set forth the ori(inal name and the alias or aliases for the use of 'hich Budicial authority has been% obtained% specifyin( the proceedin(s and the date on 'hich such authority 'as (ranted. ?udicial authorities for the use of aliases shall be recorded in the proper ci,il re(ister . . . .
-he abo,e la' 'as subse+uently amended by R.A. No. 6=5% appro,ed on $ Au(ust 1060. As amended% !.A. No. 1$2 no' reads Sec. 1. )cept as a pseudonym solely for literary% cinema% tele,ision% radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic e,ents 'here the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice% no person shall use any name different from the one 'ith 'hich he 'as re(istered at birth in the office of the local ci,il re(istry or 'ith 'hich he 'as bapti9ed for the first time% or in case of all alien% 'ith 'hich he 'as re(istered in the bureau of immi(ration upon entryH or such substitute name as may ha,e been authori9ed by a competent court Provided % -hat persons 'hose births ha,e not been re(istered in any local ci,il re(istry and 'ho ha,e not been bapti9ed% ha,e one year from the appro,al of this act 'ithin 'hich to re(ister their names in the ci,il re(istry of their residence. -he name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or t'o surnames. Sec. 2. Any person desirin( to use an alias shall apply for authority therefor in proceedin(s lie those le(ally pro,ided to obtain Budicial authority for a chan(e of name and no person shall be allo'ed to secure such Budicial authority for more than one alias. -he petition for an alias shall set forth the person8s baptismal and family name and the name recorded in the ci,il re(istry% if different% his immi(rant8s name% if an alien% and his pseudonym% if he has such names other than his ori(inal or real name% specifyin( the reason or reasons for the desired alias. -he Budicial authority for the use of alias% the !hristian name and the alien immi(rant8s name shall be recorded in the proper local ci,il re(istry% and no person shall use any name or names other than his ori(inal or real name u nless the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local ci,il re(istry. -he obBecti,e and purpose of !.A. No. 1$2 ha,e their ori(in and basis in Act No. 33% An Act to Re(ulate the se in ;usiness -ransactions of Names other than -rue Names% Prescribin( the #uties of the #irector of the ;ureau of !ommerce and *ndustry in its nforcement% Pro,idin( Penalties for Diolations thereof% and for other purposes% 'hich 'as appro,ed on 1$ No,ember 1031 and amended by Act No. $1$7% appro,ed on 2 No,ember 103$. -he pertinent pro,isions of Act No. 33 as amended follo' Sec. 1. *t shall be unla'ful for any person to use or si(n% on any 'ritten or printed receipt includin( receipt for ta) or business or any 'ritten or printed contract not ,erified by a notary public or on any 'ritten or printed e,idence of any a(reement or business transactions% any name used in connection 'ith his business other than his true name% or eep conspicuously e)hibited in plain ,ie' in or at the place 'here his business is conducted% if he is en(a(ed in a business% any si(n announcin( a firm name or business name or style 'ithout first re(isterin( such other name% or such firm name% or business name or style in the ;ureau of !ommerce to(ether 'ith his true name and that of any other person ha,in( a Boint or common interest 'ith him in such contract% a(reement% business transaction% or business . . . . >or a bit of history% the enactment of !.A. No. 1$2 as amended 'as made primarily to curb the common practice amon( the !hinese of adoptin( scores of different names and aliases 'hich created tremendous confusion in the field of trade. Such a practice almost bordered on the crime of usin( fictitious names 'hich for ob,ious reasons could not be successfully maintained a(ainst the !hinese 'ho% ri(htly or 'ron(ly% claimed they possessed a thousand and one names. !.A. No. 1$2 thus penali9ed the act of usin( an alias name% unless such alias 'as duly authori9ed by proper Budicial proceedin(s and recorded in the ci,il re(ister.0 *n >! 7)en( ')ia! v . Rep!*lic 1= the !ourt had occasion to e)plain the meanin(% concept and ill effects of the use of an alias 'ithin the pur,ie' of !.A. No. 1$2 'hen 'e ruled -here can hardly be any doubt that petitioner8s use of alias 4Mhen( !hiau @oun(4 in addition to his real name 4@u !hen( !hiau4 'ould add to more confusion. -hat he is no'n in his business% as mana(er of the Robert Reid% *nc.% by the former name% is not sufficient reason to allo' him its use. After all% petitioner admitted that he is no'n to his associates by both names. *n fact% the Anselmo -rinidad% *nc.% of 'hich he is a customer% no's him by his real name. Neither 'ould the fact that he had encountered certain difficulties in his transactions 'ith (o,ernment offices 'hich re+uired him to e)plain 'hy he bore t'o names% Bustify the (rant of his petition% for petitioner could easily a,oid said difficulties by simply usin( and sticin( only to his real name 4@u Mhen( !hiau.G -he fact that petitioner intends to reside permanently in the Philippines% as sho'n by his ha,in( filed a petition for naturali9ation in ;ranch D of the abo,eilipino citi9en% there 'ould then be no necessity for his further usin( said alias% as it 'ould be contrary to the usual >ilipino 'ay and practice of usin( only one name in ordinary as 'ell a s business transactions. And% as the lo'er court correctly obser,ed% if he belie,es "after he is naturali9ed& that it 'ould be better for him to 'rite his name follo'in( the ccidental method% 4he can easily file a petition for chan(e of name% so that in lieu of the name 4@u Mhen( !hian%4 he can% abandonin( the same% as for authority to adopt the name Mhen( !hiau @oun(.G All thin(s considered% 'e are of the opinion and so hold% that petitioner has not sho'n satisfactory proper and reasonable (rounds under the afore+uoted pro,isions of !ommon'ealth Act No. 1$2 and the Rules of !ourt% to 'arrant the (rant of his petition for the use of an alias name. !learly therefore an alias is a name or names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his real name by 'hich he is re(istered at birth or bapti9ed the first time or substitute name authori9ed by a competent authority. A man8s name is simply the sound or sounds by 'hich he is commonly desi(nated by his fello's and by 'hich they distin(uish him but sometimes a man is no'n by se,eral different names and these are no'n as aliases. 11 Cence% the use of a fictitious name or a different name belon(in( to another person in a sin(le instance 'ithout any si(n or indication that the user intends to be no'n by this name in addition to his real name from that day forth does not fall 'ithin the prohibition contained in !.A. No. 1$2 as amended. -his is so in the case at bench. *t is not disputed that petitioner introduced himself in the ffice of the mbudsman as 4scar Pere9%4 'hich 'as the name of the messen(er of his la'yer 'ho should ha,e brou(ht the letter to that office in the first place instead of petitioner. Ce did so 'hile merely ser,in( the re+uest of his la'yer to obtain a copy of the complaint in 'hich petitioner 'as a respondent. -here is no +uestion then that 4scar Pere94 is not an alias name of petitioner. -here is no e,idence sho'in( that he had used or 'as intendin( to use that name as his second name in addition to his real name. -he use of the name 4scar Pere94 'as made by petitioner in an isolated transaction 'here he 'as not e,en le(ally re+uired to e)pose his real identity. >or% e,en if he had identified himself properly at the ffice of the mbudsman% petitioner 'ould still be able to (et a copy of the complaint as a matter of ri(ht% and the ffice of the mbudsman could not refuse him because the complaint 'as part of public records hence open to inspection and e)amination by anyone under the proper circumstances. hile the act of petitioner may be co,ered by other pro,isions of la'% such does not constitute an offense 'ithin the concept of !.A. No. 1$2 as amended under 'hich he is prosecuted. -he confusion and fraud in business transactions 'hich the anti5alias la% and its related statutes see to pre,ent are not present here as the circumstances are peculiar and distinct from those contemplated by the le(islature
in enactin( !.A. No. 1$2 as amended. -here e)ists a ,alid presumption that undesirable conse+uences 'ere ne,er intended by a le(islati,e measure and that a construction of 'hich the statute is fairly susceptible is fa,ored% 'hich 'ill a,oid all obBectionable% mischie,ous% indefensible% 'ron(ful% e,il and inBurious conse+uences. 12 /oreo,er% as !.A. No. 1$2 is a penal statute% it should be construed strictly a(ainst the State and in fa,or of the accused. 13 -he reason for this principle is the tenderness of the la' for the ri(hts of indi,iduals and the obBect is to establish a certain rule by conformity to 'hich manind 'ould be safe% and the discretion of the court limited. 1$ *ndeed% our mind cannot rest easy on the proposition that petitioner should be con,icted on a la' that does not clearly penali9e the act done by him. CR>R% the +uestioned decision of the !ourt of Appeals affirmin( that of the Re(ional -rial !ourt of #a,ao !ity is RDRS# and S- AS*# and petitioner !SAR* RSA is A!F*--# of the crime char(ed. S R#R#.
G.R. No. 8 #+/ , 19 CARLS ALN +n CASI#IRA ALN, petitioners%
,s. INT"R#"%IAT" APP"LLAT" C&RT +n T"CLA PA%&A, respondents. CR&, J.:
-he +uestion is sometimes ased% in serious in+uiry or in curious conBecture% 'hether 'e are a court of la' or a court of Bustice. #o 'e apply the la' e,en if it is unBust or do 'e administer Bustice e,en a(ainst the la' -hus +ueried% 'e do not e+ui,ocate. -he ans'er is that 'e do neither because 'e are a court *ot) of la' and of Bustice. e apply the la' %it) Bustice for that is our mission and purpose in the scheme of our Republic. -his case is an illustration. >i,e brothers and sisters inherited in e+ual pro indiviso shares a parcel of land re(istered in 8the name of their deceased parents under !- No. 1=077 of the Re(istry of #eeds of -arlac. 1 n /arch 15% 1063% one of them% !elestino Padua% transferred his undi,ided share of the herein petitioners for the sum of P55=.== by 'ay of absolute sale. 2 ne year later% on April 22% 106$% usta+uia Padua% his sister% sold her o'n share to the same ,endees% in an instrument denominated 4!on Pacto de Retro Sale%4 for the sum of P $$=.==. 3 ;y ,irtue of such a(reements% the petitioners occupied% after the said sales% an area correspondin( to t'oebruary 25% 1076% /ariano Padua% one of the fi,e coheirs% sou(ht to redeem the area sold to the spouses Alon9o% but his complaint 'as dismissed 'hen it appeared that he 'as an American citi9en . 5 n /ay 27% 1077% ho'e,er% -ecla Padua% another co % 1 4 the !ourt% speain( throu(h the same learned Burist% emphasi9ed that the 'ritten notice should be (i,en by the ,endor and not the ,endees% conformably to a similar re+uirement under Article 1623% readin( as follo's Art. 1623. -he ri(ht of le(al pre
