Consti Law 2 Digests 1
Consti Law 2 Digests 1
Consti Law 2 Digests 1
the PH Islands”
Meaning of “Government” o The term government refers to “that institution or aggregate
1. United States v. Dorr (May 19 1903 Ladd, J.) of institutions by which an independent society makes and
FACTS: carries out those rules of action which are unnecessary to
Fred Dorr et, al. were convicted of libel for writing, publishing, and enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed
circulating an editorial in the issue of “Manila Freedom” under the upon the people forming that society by those who possess
caption “A few hard facts.” the power or authority of prescribing them.”
The editorial was about Sidney Adamson’s letter about the Civil o Administration refers to “the aggregate of those persons in
Commission which says that it disregards the records of natives whose hands the reins of government are for the time being
obtained during the military rule of the PH and that it constituted a (the chief ministers or heads of departments).”
protectorate over a set of men who should be in jail or deported. o In the Sedition Act, the term government is used in an
o The letter described it as “foolish work”. abstract sense, meaning the existing political system, its laws
o That the Fil office holders are rascals. and institutions. The Court opines that it is in this sense that
o That it has appointed those in high positions corrupt men of the term is used in the enactment (Act 292) under
no personal character. consideration.
ISSUE: W/N the defendants are guilty of violating Sec. 8 of Act No. 292. The subject provision refers to the government as a system. The
HELD: NO. article attacks the government as an aggregate of public officials who
Every person who shall (1) utter seditious words or speeches, write, run it.
publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the The Court ruled that the article in question contains no attack upon
United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or the governmental system of the U.S., by which the authority of the
(2) which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his U.S. is enforced in these Islands per se.
office, or (3) which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together o In this case, it is the character of men who are entrusted with
for unlawful purposes, or (4) which suggest or incite rebellious the administration of the government which the writer wants
conspiracies or riots, or (5) which tend to stir up the people against to bring disrepute due to their motives, public integrity, and
the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the community, the private morals and wisdoms of their policy.
safety and order of the Government, or (6) who shall knowingly
conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding Duty and Responsibility of Each Branch of Government
two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or 2. Araneta v. Dinglasan (Aug 26 1949 Tuason, J.)
both, in the discretion of the court. FACTS:
The complaint described the article as a scurrilous libel against the The 4 consolidated petitions challenge the validity of Commonwealth
Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Act 671 which produced EO 62, which regulates rentals for houses
Philippine Islands, which tends to obstruct its lawful officers in the and lots for residential buildings.
execution of their offices, and which tends to instigate others to cabal Petitioner J. Antonio Araneta was prosecuted for violating the said
and meet together for unlawful purposes, and which suggests and provisions. He prays for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to Judge
incites rebellious conspiracies, and which tends to stir up the people Dinglasan.
against the lawful authorities, and which disturbs the its safety and Petitioner Leon Ma Guerrero, a shoe exporter, is against EO 192
order. which aims to control exports from the PH and seeks to compel the
The Court negated the complaint. Commissioner of Customs to permit him to export shoes.
o They were unable to discover anything in it which can be Petitioner Eulogio Rodriguez seeks to restrain the treasurer of the PH
regarded as having a tendency to produce anything like what from disbursing EO 225, which appropriates unds for the operation of
may be called disaffection, or, in other words, a state of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines during the period
feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the from July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950, and for other purposes.
Government and obedient to the laws.
Petitioner Antonio Barredo is attacking EO 226 which was ISSUE: W/N the subject land can be expropriated.
appropriating funds to hold the national elections. HELD: NO.
Petitioners allege that CA 671 no longer has any force and effect and CA 539:
that all EOs pursuant to it have likewise ceased. o SEC 1. The President of the Philippines is authorized to
CA 671: AN ACT DECLARING A STATE OF TOTAL EMERGENCY acquire private lands or any interest therein, through
AS A RESULT OF WAR INVOLVING THE PHILIPPINES AND purchaser or farms for resale at reasonable prices and under
AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO PROMULGATE RULES AND such conditions as he may fix to their bona fide tenants or
REGULATIONS TO MEET SUCH EMERGENCY. occupants or to private individuals who will work the lands
ISSUE: W/N CA 671 has ceased to have any force and effect. themselves and who are qualified to acquire and own lands in
HELD: YES. the Philippines.
CA 671 does not fix the duration of its effectiveness. The intention of o SEC 2. The President may designate any department,
the act has to be sought for in its nature, object to be accomplished, bureau, office, or instrumentality of the National Government,
the purpose to be subserved and its relation to the Constitution. or he may organize a new agency to carry out the objectives
The Court explained that CA 671, which granted emergency powers of this Act. For this purpose, the agency so created or
to the president, was approved pursuant to Art. VI of the Consti which designated shall be considered a public corporation.
provides that any law passed by virtue thereof should be "for a limited Hand in hand with the principle that no one shall be deprived of his
period." property without due process of law, herein invoked, and that "the
The Court held that it became inoperative when Congress met during promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic
the opening of the regular session on May 1946 and that EOs 62, security of all the people should be the concern of the state," is a
192, 225 and 226 were issued without authority of law . The session declaration, with which the former should be reconciled, that "the
of the Congress is the point of expiration of the Act and not the first Philippines is a Republican state" created to secure to the Filipino
special session after it. people "the blessings of independence under a regime of justice,
In a special session, the Congress may “consider general legislation liberty and democracy."
or only such subjects as he (President) may designate.” Such acts Democracy, as a way of life enshrined in the Constitution, embraces
were to be good only up to the corresponding dates of adjournment of as its necessary components freedom and along with these freedoms
the following sessions of the Legislature, “unless sooner amended or are included economic freedom and freedom of enterprise within
repealed by the National Assembly.” Even if war continues to rage reasonable bounds and under proper control. In paving the way for
on, new legislation must be made and approved in order to continue the breaking up of existing large estates, trust in perpetuity,
the EPAs, otherwise it is lifted upon reconvening or upon early repeal. feudalism, and their concomitant evils, the Constitution did not
propose to destroy or undermine the property right or to advocate
Essence and Meaning of Democracy equal distribution of wealth or to authorize of what is in excess of
3. *Guido v. Rural Progress Administration (Oct 31 1949 Tuason, J.) one's personal needs and the giving of it to another.
FACTS: The promotion of social justice ordained by the Constitution does not
Petitioner Justa Guido aims to prevent respondents Rural Progress supply paramount basis for untrammeled expropriation of private land
Administration and Judge Oscar Castelo from expropriating her 2 lots by the Rural Progress Administration or any other government
in Caloocan Rizal. Petitioner claims that: instrumentality. Social justice does not champion division of property
o RPA acted without jurisdiction or corporate power in filing the or equality of economic status; what it and the Constitution do
expropriation complaint guaranty are equality of opportunity, equality of political rights,
o The subject land is commercial and is not in the purview of equality before the law, equality between values given and received
Act 539 on the basis of efforts exerted in their production. As applied to
o The tenants are in contracts of valid lease with her and metropolitan centers, especially Manila, in relation to housing
expropriation would impair the obligations of the contracts problems, it is a command to devise, among other social measures,
o Judge Castelo erred in fixing the provisional value of the land ways and means for the elimination of slums, shambles, shacks, and
at P118, 780 and ordering its delivery to RPA house that are dilapidated, overcrowded, without ventilation. light and
sanitation facilities, and for the construction in their place of decent o The following day, Gamatero shot Van Twest in the chest with
dwellings for the poor and the destitute. As will presently be shown, a baby armalite. Antonino stabbed him repeatedly, cut off his
condemnation of blighted urban areas bears direct relation to public penis, and burned body.
safety health, and/or morals, and is legal. A day after Umbal’s confession, the PACC raided the 2 dwellings of
In a broad sense, expropriation of large estates, trusts in perpetuity, Santiago, wherein Van Twest’s blue Nissan Pathfinder and assorted
and land that embraces a whole town, or a large section of a town or firearms and ammo were found. The next day, they arrested Antonio
city, bears direct relation to the public welfare. The size of the land and Batok. The PACC found with them firearms, ammo, and Van
expropriated, the large number of people benefited, and the extent of Twest’s Cartier sunglasses.
social and economic reform secured by the condemnation, clothes The PACC referred the case to the DOJ. After preliminary
the expropriation with public interest and public use. The investigation, the Judge Diokno found probable cause and issued a
expropriation in such cases tends to abolish economic slavery, warrant of arrest without bail.
feudalistic practices, and other evils inimical to community prosperity The petitioners questioned the issued warrants of arrests. They claim
and contentment and public peace and order. that Judge Diokno acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess
The condemnation of a small property in behalf of 10, 20 or 50 of his jurisdiction as there is lack of probable cause for him to issue
persons and their families does not inure to the benefit of the public to the warrants. They further contend that the judge did not personally
a degree sufficient to give the use public character. The expropriation determine the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence where the
proceedings at bar have been instituted for the economic relief of a investigation was based from.
few families devoid of any consideration of public health, public peace ISSUE: W/N there is probable cause to order the arrest of the petitioners.
and order, or other public advantage. It suffices to say for the purpose HELD: NO.
of this decision that the case under consideration is far wanting in
those elements which make for public convenience or public use. 5. Yrasuegi v. Philippine Airlines (Oct 17 2008 Reyes, R.T., J.)
FACTS:
4. Allado v. Diokno (May 5 1994 Bellosillo, J.) Petitioner Armado Yrasuegi was a former international flight steward
FACTS: of Phil Airlines. 5’8’’ with a large frame.
Petitioners Diosdado Allano and Roberto Mendoza are partners of Armado was dismissed from his job because of his weight. In 1984,
the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez, and Allado. They have been PAL advised him to go on a vacation leave to address his weight
accused of the heinous crime of kidnappijg with murder by the concerns. However, he failed to meet PAL’s weight standards,
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested prompting another leave without pay.
without bail by respondent Judge Roberto Diokno. After meeting the required weight, Armado was allowed to return to
The petitioners were arrested on the basis of an extrajudicial work. But his weight problem recurred.
confession of security guard Escolastico Umbal. In 1989, Armado weighed 209 lbs, 43 lbs over the ideal weight. He
o Umbal stated that the petitioners kidnapped and slayed one was removed from flight duty from May-July 1989.
Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German national. Cabin Crew Group Manager Augusto Barrios sent Armado a letter,
o Umbal and his companions were met by the petitioners at stating that he had 90 days to reach his ideal weight. However, he
Silahis Hotel and in exchange for P2.5mill the petitioners failed.
apprehended Van Twest who allegedly had an international Armado failed to report for weight checks and was given 1 month to
warrant of arrest against him. comply with the weight requirement.
o Van Twest was arrested and brought to a safehouse. Umbal In April 1990, Armado was formally warned but he ignored the
was asked to watch over their quarry. After 4 days, the directive and did not report for weight checks.
policemen who arrested Van Twest returned together with the In Nov 1992, PAL served to Armado a Notice of Administrative
petitioners. Charge for violation of company standards on weight requirements.
o One SPO2 Batok faked the interrogation of Van Twest and o In his Answer, Armado claimed that his violation had already
made him sign certain documents. been condoned by PAL since no action had been taken
regarding his case since 1988.
o He also claimed PAL discriminated against him since it was 6. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Association v. Philippine
not fair in treating similar cabin crew members. Blooming Mills Co. (Jun 5 1973 Makasiar, J.)
In June 1995, PAL informed Armado that his services were FACTS:
considered terminated. Petitioner PBMEO claim that they decided to stage a mass
Armado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL. demonstration at Malacanang to protest against alleged abuses of
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Armado was illegally dismissed, stating the Pasig police.
that the weight standards do not need to be complied with since it did After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine
not hamper Armado’s performance of his duties. Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the leaders of the
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was
o The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. They confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out that the
ruled that obesity is a disease itself and as a consequence, demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in fact
there can be no intentional defiance or serious misconduct by an exercise of the laborers' inalienable constitutional right to freedom
Armado. of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress
PAL elevated the case to the CA. The CA reversed the NLRC of grievances.
decision, saying that the NLRC committed GAOD since the weight The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would
standards were a continuing qualification for the employees and interrupt the normal course of their business which may result in the
failure to adhere to it is an analogous cause for dismissal as stated in loss of revenue. This was backed up with the threat of the possibility
the Labor Code. that the workers would lose their jobs if they pushed through with the
ISSUE: W/N Armado was discriminated against by PAL. rally.
HELD: NO. A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their
Armado claims that PAL is using passenger safety as a convenient appeal that while the workers may be allowed to participate, those
excuse to discriminate against him. from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent themselves to
o The Court agrees with the CA that discrimination came into participate, otherwise, they would be dismissed. Since it was too late
play in a “confession-and-avoidance position that impliedly to cancel the plan, the rally took place and the officers of the PBMEO
admitted the cause of dismissal, including the were eventually dismissed for a violation of the ‘No Strike and No
reasonableness of the applicable standard and the private Lockout’ clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
respondent’s failure to comply.” The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of
There is nothing on the records which supports the finding of the PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion
discriminatory treatment. for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of
o Armado cannot establish this by simply naming the supposed Industrial Relations for being filed two days late.
cabin attendants who are similar to him. ISSUE: Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the
The Court also annul the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC CBA?
because factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible HELD: NO.
and must be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of
Armado also invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the human rights over property rights is recognized. Because these
Consti. freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious
o However, in the absence of governmental interference, the in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need
o The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only
private individuals. "with narrow specificity." Property and property rights can be lost thru
prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of
Definition and Hierarchy of Rights Under the Bill of Rights (Doctrine civil liberties, the rights to freedom of expression and of assembly
of Preferred Freedom) occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation
and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority
"gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of
dubious intrusions." police regulation.
The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co- Case was in the
assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute when scope of police power. As underlying questions of fact may condition
directed against public officials or "when exercised in relation to our the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the resumption of
right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed.” constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual
foundation of record for overthrowing the statute." No such factual
7. Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila foundation being laid in the present case, the lower court deciding the
FACTS: matter on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts, the presumption
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, and one of its of validity must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set
members Hotel del Mar Inc. petitioned for the prohibition of aside.”
Ordinance 4670 on June 14, 1963 to be applicable in the city of There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely
Manila. enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals,
They claimed that the ordinance was beyond the powers of the particularly fornication and prostitution. Moreover, the increase in the
Manila City Board to regulate due to the fact that hotels were not part licensed fees was intended to discourage "establishments of the kind
of its regulatory powers. They also asserted that Section 1 of the from operating for purpose other than legal" and at the same time, to
challenged ordinance was unconstitutional and void for being increase "the income of the city government."
unreasonable and violative of due process insofar because it would Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the
impose P6,000.00 license fee per annum for first class motels and health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the
P4,500.00 for second class motels; there was also the requirement people. In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection
that the guests would fill up a form specifying their personal and other applicable constitutional guaranties, however, the power
information. must not be unreasonable or violative of due process.
There was also a provision that the premises and facilities of such There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It has a
hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection from standard to which the governmental action should conform in order
city authorities. They claimed this to be violative of due process for that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case,
being vague. be valid. What then is the standard of due process which must exist
The law also classified motels into two classes and required the both as a procedural and a substantive requisite to free the
maintenance of certain minimum facilities in first class motels such as challenged ordinance from legal infirmity? It is responsiveness to the
a telephone in each room, a dining room or, restaurant and laundry. supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively
The petitioners also invoked the lack of due process on this for being put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided.
arbitrary. Due process is not a narrow or "technical conception with fixed
It was also unlawful for the owner to lease any room or portion content unrelated to time, place and circumstances," decisions based
thereof more than twice every 24 hours. on such a clause requiring a "close and perceptive inquiry into
There was also a prohibition for persons below 18 in the hotel. fundamental principles of our society." Questions of due process are
The challenged ordinance also caused the automatic cancellation of not to be treated narrowly or pedantically in slavery to form or phrase.
the license of the hotels that violated the ordinance. Nothing in the petition is sufficient to prove the ordinance’s nullity for
The lower court declared the ordinance unconstitutional. an alleged failure to meet the due process requirement.
Hence, this appeal by the city of Manila. Cu Unjieng case: Licenses for non-useful occupations are also
Issue: Whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of incidental to the police power and the right to exact a fee may be
the due process clause? implied from the power to license and regulate, but in fixing amount of
Held: No. Judgment reversed. the license fees the municipal corporations are allowed a much wider
Ratio: discretion in this class of cases than in the former, and aside from
"The presumption is towards the validity of a law.” However, the applying the well-known legal principle that municipal ordinances
Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is must not be unreasonable, oppressive, or tyrannical, courts have, as
a general rule, declined to interfere with such discretion. Eg. Sale of effectivity of the ordinance. These were the Pandacan oil depots of
liquors. Shell and Caltex.
Lutz v. Araneta- Taxation may be made to supplement the state’s But the city of Manila and the DOE entered into an MOU which only
police power. scaled down the property covered by the depots and did not stop
In one case- “much discretion is given to municipal corporations in their operations. In the same resolution, the
determining the amount," here the license fee of the operator of a Sanggunian declared that the MOU was effective only for a period of
massage clinic, even if it were viewed purely as a police power six months starting July 25, 2002. It was extended to 2003.
measure. Petitioners filed for mandamus in SC urging the city to implement
On the impairment of freedom to contract by limiting duration of use Ordinance 8027. Respondent’s defense is that Ordinance No. 8027
to twice every 24 hours- It was not violative of due process. 'Liberty' has been superseded by the MOU and the resolutions and that the
as understood in democracies, is not license; it is 'liberty regulated by MOU was more of a guideline to 8027.
law.' Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the Issues:
individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce
and the general well-being. Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan
Laurel- The citizen should achieve the required balance of liberty and Terminals, and
authority in his mind through education and personal discipline, so Whether the June 26, 2002 MOU and the resolutions ratifying it can
that there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027
peace and order and happiness for all. Held: Yes to both, Petition granted
The freedom to contract no longer "retains its virtuality as a living Ratio:
principle, unlike in the sole case of People v Pomar. The policy of Rule 65, Section 316 of the Rules of Court- mandamus may be filed
laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins
affected with public interest. as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. The petitioner
What may be stressed sufficiently is that if the liberty involved were should have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the
freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of performance of the act and it must be the clear and imperative duty of
governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where respondent to do the act required to be done.
the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of property, the Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance
permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider. with a duty, which is questionable or over which a
On the law being vague on the issue of personal information, the substantial doubt exists. Unless the right to the relief sought is
maintenance of establishments, and the “full rate of payment”- unclouded, mandamus will not issue. When a mandamus
Holmes- “We agree to all the generalities about not supplying criminal proceeding concerns a public right and its object is to compel a
laws with what they omit but there is no canon against using common public duty, the people who are interested in the execution of
sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean." the laws are regarded as the real parties in interest and they
need not show any specific interest. Petitioners are citizens of
8. Morfe v. Mutuc manila and thus have a direct interest in the ordinances.
9. Social Justice Society v. Atienza On the other hand, the Local Government Code imposes upon
FACTS: respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all laws and
On November 20, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila ordinances relative to the governance of the city. "One of these is
enacted Ordinance No. 8027 and Atienza passed it the following day. Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he has the
Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area described therein from duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no
of businesses disallowed under Section 1 to cease and desist from other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.
operating their businesses within six months from the date of These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an
alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this
is obvious. It might seriously hinder the transaction of public Job as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the
business if these officers were to be permitted in all cases to Bureau of Custom or Post. If the search is made upon the request of
question the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposing law enforces, a warrant must generally must be secured first if it to
duties upon them and which have not judicially pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made in
been declared unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for
the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound its own and private purpose, as in the case at bar, and without the
to obey it. intervention of the police authorities, the right against unreasonable
Need not resolve this issue. Assuming that the terms of the MOU search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private
were inconsistent with Ordinance No. 8027, the resolutions which individual, not the law enforcer, is involved.
ratified it and made it binding on the City of Manila expressly gave In sum, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure
it full force and effect only until April 30, 2003. cannot be extended to acts committed by private individual as to
bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
10. Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC government.
11. UTAK v. COMELEC The alleged violation against unreasonable search and seizure may
12. People v. Marti only invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by
FACTS: the exercise by the sovereign authority.
The appellant and his common law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the
booth of the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang 13. Serrano v. NLRC
Filipino Complex Ermita, Manila carrying with them four gift wrapped 14. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Casa Montessori Internationale
packages to be sent in Zurich Switzerland. The proprietress, Anita FACTS: On November 8, 1982, CASA Montessori International opened
Reyes (not related to Shirley Reyes) then asked the appellant if he Current AccouNT with BPI with CASA’s President Lebron as one of its
could examine and expect the packages however appellant refused, authorized signatories. In 1991, after conducting an investigation, plaintiff
assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and discovered that nine of its checks had been encashed by a certain Sonny
gloves and were just gifts to a friend. Anita no longer insisted. Before D. Santos since 1990 in the total amount of P782,000.00. It turned out
delivery of appellant’s box to the bureau of Customs and or bureau of that Santos with account at BPI Greenbelt Branch was a fictitious name
Post, Mr. Job Reyes, proprietor and husband of Anita, following used by third party defendant Leonardo T. Yabut who worked as external
standard procedure opened the boxes for final inspection. When he auditor of CASA. Third party defendant voluntarily admitted that he forged
opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He squeezed one of the the signature of Lebron and encashed the checks. In 1991, plaintiff filed
bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Job Complaint for Collection with Damages against defendant bank praying
prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting that the latter be ordered to reinstate the amount of P782,500.00 with
laboratory examination sample he extracted from the cellophane. interest. RTC rendered decision in favor of the plaintiff. CA modified
Therefore, job and three NBI agents and a photographer went to the decision holding CASA as contributory negligent hence ordered Yabut to
Reyes’ office at Ermita. Job brought out the box in which appellants’ reimburse BPI half the total amount claimed and CASA, the other half. It
packages were places and in the presence of the NBI agents, open also disallowed attorney’s fees and moral and exemplary damages.
the top flaps, removed the Styrofoam and took out the cellophane
wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves are found ISSUE: W/N moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees should
inside the cellophane. be awarded.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is violation of appellant’s constitutional right
against unreasonable search and seizure. RULING: Moral and exemplary damages denied but atty.’s fees granted.
HELD: In the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or of fraud or bad faith,
The Supreme Court held that it is not the NBI who made the search. moral damages cannot be awarded. The adverse result of an action does
Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job who made not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it.CASA was
search and inspection of the said packages. Said inspection was unable to identify the particular instance upon which its claim for moral
reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr.
damages is predicated. Neither bad faith nor negligence so gross that it
amounts to malice can be imputed to BPI.
Imposed by way of correction for the public good, exemplary damages
cannot be recovered as a matter of right. There is no bad faith on the part
of BPI for paying the checks of CASA upon forged signatures. Therefore,
the former cannot be said to have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner. The latter, having no right to moral
damages, cannot demand exemplary damages.
When the act or omission of the defendant has compelled the plaintiff to
incur expenses to protect the latter’s interest, or where the court deems it
just and equitable, attorney’s fees may be recovered. In the present case,
BPI persistently denied the claim of CASA under the NIL to recredit the
latter’s account for the value of the forged checks. This denial
constrained CASA to incur expenses and exert effort for more than ten
years in order to protect its corporate interest in its bank account.