Statcon 1st Assignment

7/21/2019 Statcon 1st Assignment

1/40

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. !"#$# %ul& "#' (()

THE DIRECTOR O* +,NDS' petitione-'

s.

COURT O* ,PPE,+S an/ TEODORO ,0IST,DO' substitute/ b&

M,RG,RIT,' M,RISS,' M,RI0E+' ,RNO+D an/ M,R1 ,NN' all

su-na2e/ ,0ISTO' -espon/ents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Is newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land

registration case mandatory or directory?

Statement of the Case

The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely procedural and that the failure

to cause such publication did not deprie the trial court of its authority to

grant the application! But the "olicitor General disagreed and thus filed this

petition to set aside the #ecision $promulgated on %uly &, $''$ and thesubse(uent )esolution*promulgated on Noember $', $''$ by )espondent

Court of Appeals&in CA+G!)! C No! *&-$'! The dispositie portion of the

challenged #ecision reads./

012)234)2, premises considered, the 5udgment of dismissal

appealed from is hereby set aside, and a new one entered

confirming the registration and title of applicant, Teodoro Abistado,

3ilipino, a resident of Barangay -, Poblacion 6amburao, 4ccidental

6indoro, now deceased and substituted by 6argarita, 6arissa,

6aribel, Arnold and 6ary Ann, all surnamed Abistado, representedby their aunt, 6iss %osefa Abistado, 3ilipinos, residents of Poblacion

6amburao, 4ccidental 6indoro, to the parcel of land coered under

6"I 7I+A+89 &$:+# located in Poblacion 6amburao, 4ccidental

6indoro!

The oppositions filed by the )epublic of the Philippines and priate

oppositor are hereby dismissed for want of eidence!

;pon the finality of this decision and payment of the correspondingtaeted as and

)egistration Case 7)C9 No! 8= and assigned to Branch // of the )egional

Trial Court of 6amburao, 4ccidental 6indoro!=1oweer, during the

pendency of his petition, applicant died! 1ence, his heirs @ 6argarita,

6arissa, 6aribel, Arnold and 6ary Ann, all surnamed Abistado @

represented by their aunt %osefa Abistado, who was appointed their

guardian ad litem, were substituted as applicants!

The land registration court in its decision dated %une $&, $'8' dismissed the

petition for want of 5urisdiction! 1oweer, it found that the applicants

through their predecessors+in+interest had been in open, continuous,

e


2/40

The trial court also cited 6inistry of %ustice 4pinion No! /8, "eries of $'8*,

which in its pertinent portion proides.8

It bears emphasis that the publication re(uirement under "ection *&

of P# $:*'D has a two+fold purposeE the first, which is mentioned in

the proision of the afore(uoted proision refers to publication in the

4fficial Gaette, and is 5urisdictionalE while the second, which is

mentioned in the opening clause of the same paragraph, refers topublication not only in the 4fficial Gaette but also in a newspaper of

general circulation, and is procedural! Neither one nor the other is

dispensable! As to the first, publication in the 4fficial Gaette is

indispensably necessary because without it, the court would be

powerless to assume 5urisdiction oer a particular land registration

case! As to the second, publication of the notice of initial hearing also

in a newspaper of general circulation is indispensably necessary as

a re(uirement of procedural due processE otherwise, any decision

that the court may promulgate in the case would be legally infirm!

;nsatisfied, priate respondents appealed to )espondent Court of Appeals

which, as earlier e


3/40

"ec! *&! Notice of initial hearing# publication# etc! @ The court shall,

within fie days from filing of the application, issue an order setting

the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than

forty+fie days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order!

The public shall be gien notice of initial hearing of the application for

land registration by means of 7$9 publicationE 7*9 mailingE and 7&9

posting!

$! $" publication! @

;pon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial

hearing, the Commissioner of and )egistration shall cause a notice

of initial hearing to be published once in the 4fficial Gaette and

once in a newspaper of general circulation in the

Philippines. ro%ided# howe%er

, that the publication in the 4fficial

Gaette shall be sufficient to confer 5urisdiction upon the court! "aid

notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to hae an

interest in the land inoled including the ad5oining owners so far as

>nown, and to all whom it may concern! "aid notice shall also

re(uire all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date

and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not

be granted!

ewise imperatie since the law included

such re(uirement in its detailed proision!

It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in

rem!$-Being in rem, such proceeding re(uires constructie seiure of the

land as against all

persons, including the state, who hae rights to or

interests in the property! Anin remproceeding is alidated essentially through

publication! This being so, the process must strictly be complied with!4therwise, persons who may be interested or whose rights may be adersely

affected would be barred from contesting an application which they had no

>nowledge of! As has been ruled, a party as an owner see>ing the inscription

of realty in the land registration court must proe by satisfactory and

conclusie eidence not only his ownership thereof but the identity of the

same, for he is in the same situation as one who institutes an action for

recoery of realty!$81e must proe his title against the whole world! This

tas>, which rests upon the applicant, can best be achieed when all persons

concerned @ nay, the whole world @ who hae rights to or interests in the

sub5ect property are notified and effectiely inited to come to court and showcause why the application should not be granted! The elementary norms of

due process re(uire that before the claimed property is ta>en from concerned

parties and registered in the name of the applicant, said parties must be

gien notice and opportunity to oppose!

It may be as>ed why publication in a newspaper of general circulation should

be deemed mandatory when the law already re(uires notice by publication in

the 4fficial Gaette as well as by mailing and posting, all of which hae

already been complied with in the case at hand! The reason is due process

and the reality that the 4fficial Gaette is not as widely read and circulated as

newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such that the notices


4/40


5/40

2rlinda C! Pascual

0enceslao C! Pascual, %r!

7c9 Children of Pedro+Bautista, brother of the half blood of

the deceased, to wit.

Aelino Pascual

Isoceles Pascualoida Pascual+6artine

irginia Pascual+Ner

Nona Pascual+3ernando

4ctaio Pascual

Geranaia Pascual+#ubertE

7d9 Ac>nowledged natural children of 2ligio Pascual, brother

of the full blood of the deceased, to wit.

4liia "! Pascual

1ermes "! Pascual

7e9 Intestate of 2leuterio T! Pascual, a brother of the half

blood of the deceased and represented by the following.

#ominga 6! Pascual

6amerta P! 3ugoso

Abraham "! "armiento, III

)egina "armiento+

6acaibay

2leuterio P! "armiento#omiga P! "an #iego

Nelia P! 6ar(ue

"ilestre 6! Pascual

2leuterio 6! Pascual

7Rollo, pp! /=+/-9

Adela "oldeilla de Pascual, the suriing spouse of the late #on Andres

Pascual, filed with the )egional Trial Court 7)TC9, Branch $=* 7C3I of )ial,

Br! HHIII9, a "pecial Proceeding, Case No! -::/, for administration of the

intestate estate of her late husband 7Rollo, p! /-9!

4n #ecember $8, $'-&, Adela soldeilla de Pascual filed a "upplemental

Petition to the Petition for letters of Administration, where she e


6/40


7/40

4n motion for reconsideration of the decision in &ia %. I(C#this Court further

elucidated the successional rights of illegitimate children, which s(uarely

answers the (uestions raised by the petitioner on this point!

The Court held.

Article '*, '8', and '' clearly spea>s of successional

rights of illegitimate children, which rights are transmitted totheir descendants upon their death! The descendants 7of

these illegitimate children9 who may inherit by irtue of the

right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate! In

whateer manner, one should not oerloo> the fact that the

persons to be represented are themseles illegitimate. The

three named proisions are ery clear on this matter! The

right of representation is not aailable to illegitimate

descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a

legitimate grandparent! It may be argued, as done by

petitioners, that the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate

child is entitled to represent by irtue of the proisions ofArticle '8*, which proides that the grandchildren and other

descendants shall inherit by right of representation! "uch a

conclusion is erroneous! It would allow intestate succession

by an illegitimate child to the legitimate parent of his father or

mother, a situation which would set at naught the proisions

of Article ''*! Article '8* is inapplicable to the instant case

because Article ''* prohibits absolutely a successionab

intestatobetween the illegitimate child and the legitimate

children and relaties of the father or mother! It may not be

amiss to state Article '8* is the general rule and Article ''*the e of merit and

the assailed decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated April *', $'88

is A33I)62#!

"4 4)#2)2#!


8/40


9/40


10/40

Accused howeer would rely on eople %. !acarandang,8where a secret

agent was ac(uitted on appeal on the assumption that the appointment of

the accused as a secret agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and

order campaigns and detection of crimes, sufficiently put him within the

category of a peace officer e(uialent een to a member of the municipal

police e


11/40

PEOP+E O* THE PHI+IPPINES'plaintiff+appellee,

s!

P,TRICIO ,MIGO alias:0E0OT:'accused+appellant!

D E C I S I O N

ME+O' J.;

Initially, Patricio Amigo was charged with frustrated murder in an Information

reading as follows.

The undersigned accuses the aboe+named accused of the crime of

3);"T)AT2# 6;)#2), under Art! */8, in relation to Art! : of the

)eised Penal Code, committed as follows.

That on or about #ecember *', $'8', in the City of #aao,

Philippines, and within the 5urisdiction of this 1onorable Court, the

aboe+mentioned accused, armed with a >nife, with treachery and

eident premeditation and with intent to >ill wilfully, unlawfully and

feloniously attac>ed, assaulted and stab with said weapon one

Benito Ng "uy, thereby inflicting in5uries upon the latter, the following

in5uries, to wit.

6;TIP2 "TAB 04;N#"+23T A)6, 23T C12"T,

AB#462N AN# 23T T1IG1 0IT1 P2N2T)ATI4N T4

23T P2;)A CAITJ, #IAP1)AG6 "T46AC1,

#;4#2N;6, PANC)2A" AN# 6I#T)AN2)"2 C44N!

thus performing all the acts of e


12/40

one together with his two year old son, who were all seated at the

front seat beside him while a fie year old boy was also seated at the

bac> of the said ehicle! 7T"N, April *', $''$, pp! &+:E T"N, 6arch

&$, $''*9

4n their way home and while traersing the National 1ighway of

Ba5ada, #aao City, an orange Toyota Tamaraw drien by one irgilio

Abogada, suddenly made a left turn in front of the )egional 1ospital,

Ba5ada, #aao City, without noticing the 3ord 3iera coming from the

opposite direction! This Tamaraw was heading for "terlyn

Litchenette, which was situated at the comer of the said hospital!

7T"N, April *', $''$, p! /E T"N, 6arch &$, $''*, pp! & and $&9

0ith irgilio was Patricio Amigo alias Bebot, a ulcanier at

inglingFs ulcaniing shop owned and operated by a certain

Galadua! 1e was also seated at the right front seat beside irgilio!

#ue to the une a fie inch >nife from his waist and

simultaneously stabbed Benito hitting him twice on the chest! 7 Ibid! p!

*9

After being hit, Benito wounded and sensing that his life was in peril,

tried to eade his assailant by pushing Patricio away and run around

the Tamaraw but Patricio wielding the same >nife and not contentwith the in5uries he had already inflicted, still chased Benito and upon

oerta>ing the latter embraced him and thrusted his >nife on the

ictim seeral times, the last of which hit Benito on the left side of his

body! 7ibid! pp! 8, $, **9

It was at this 5uncture that %ocelyn who was still inside the 3ord

3iera, pleading for mercy to spare her father tried to get out of the

ehicle but it was ery unfortunate that she could not open its door!

7Ibid! p! $9

Lnowing that Patricio was really determined to >ill her father by

refusing to heed her pleas, %oselyn shouted for help, since there

were already seeral people around witnessing that fatal incident,

but to her consternation nobody lifted a single finger to help them!

7ibid! pp! =, $, $8, *$+**9 4nly after her father lay seated on the

floor of their 3ord 3iera after being hit on the left side of his body that

she was able to open the door of the said ehicle! 7 Ibid! p $*9

After this precise moment, her younger sister, upon seeing their

father bathing with his own blood, embraced him, causing Patricio to


13/40

cease from his ferocious assault and noticing the presence of

seeral people, he fled! 7Ibid! p! **9

Thereafter, an enraged %ocelyn chased him, but since the assailant

ran faster than her, she was not able to oerta>e him, thus, she

instead decided to go bac> to where her father was and carried him

inside the Tamaraw who bumped them and conse(uently brought

him to "an Pedro 1ospital where he was attended to at the

2mergency )oom! 7ibid! p $&9

0hile at the 2mergency )oom, Benito who was on a ery critical

condition, due to multiple 7$&9 stabbed wounds, was operated by #r!

)olando Chiu! After the operation, he was subse(uently brought to

the IC; and stayed there for three 7&9 wee>s! 7%uly $*, $''$, pp! &

and /9

In a last ditch effort to sae his life, haing only $ to * percent

surial, Benito was airlifted to 6anila and was directly confined at

the Chinese General 1ospital! After three 7&9 wee>s of confinement,Benito eay ruling argue that the Constitution

abolished the death penalty and thereby limited the penalty for

murder to the remaining periods, to wit, the minimum and the

medium! These should now be diided into three new periods in

>eeping with the three+grade scheme intended by the legislature!

Those who disagree feel that Article III, "ection $'7$9 merely

prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and has not, by reducing


14/40


15/40

range as determined eing body!

Coming bac> to the case at bar, we find that there being no generic

aggraating or mitigating circumstance attending the commission of

the offenses, the applicable sentence is the medium period of the

penalty prescribed by Article */8 of the )eised Penal Code which,

conformably to the new doctrine here adopted and announced, is

still reclusion perpetua! This is the penalty we imposed on all the

accused+appellants for each of the three murders they hae

committed in conspiracy with the others! The award of ciil indemnity

for the heirs of each of the ictims is affirmed but the amount thereof

is hereby increased to P&,! in line with the present policy!

7at pp! $*+$*:!9

The aboe ruling was reiterated in eople %s! arominog7*& "C)A =-&

$''$D9 and in eople %s! &e la Cru7*$= "C)A /-= $''*D9!

3inally, accused+appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetuais too

cruel and harsh a penalty and pleads for sympathy! Courts are not the forum

to plead for sympathy! The duty of courts is to apply the law, disregarding

their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused! &5R( 678 S7& 678! The

remedy is elsewhere @ clemency from the e


16/40

2"G @ Ito and 7sic9 masasabi >o sa Fyo,

ayaw >ung 7sic9 mag ea, >asi

hanggang $. p!m!, >inabu>asan hindi >a

na pumaso>! Ngayon a>o ang babali> sa

Fyo, nag+aaply >a sa "tates, nag+aaply >a sa

reiew mo, >ung >a>ailanganin ang

certification mo, >alimutan mo na >asi hindi

>a sa a>in ma>a>ahingi!

C1;C1I @ 1indi 6Fam! Lasi ang ano >o

talaga noon i+cocontinue >o up to $. p!m!

2"G @$astos 4a# na>alimutan mo na >ung

paano >a pumaso> dito sa hotel!

6agsumbong >a sa ;nion >ung gusto mo!

Na>alimutan mo na >ung paano >a

na>apaso> dito #o you thin> that on your

own ma>a>apaso> >a >ung hindi a>o!

Panunumbyoyan na >ita 7"inusumbatan na>ita9!

C1;C1I @ Itutuloy >o na 6Fam sana ang

duty >o!

2"G @ Laso i lang beses na a>ong

binabali>an doon ng mga no 7sic9 >o!

2"G @ Na>alimutan mo na ba >ung paano

>a pumaso> sa hotel, >ung on your ownmerit alam >o naman >ung gaano >a >a

bobo mo! 6arami ang nag+aaply alam >ong

hindi >a papasa!

C1;C1I @ Lumuha >ami ng eunin >a >asi a>o!

C1;C1I @ 2h, di sana @

2"G @ 1uwag mong ipagmala>i na may

uta> >a >asi wala 4ang uta4! A>ala mo ba

ma>u>uha >a dito >ung hindi a>o!

C1;C1I @ 6ag+eeo!

2"G @ 1uwag na, hindi a>o mag+papa+

eaalala >a >ung paano >a

puma+rito! utang*ina sasabi+sabihin mo

>amag+ana> ng nanay at tatay mo ang mga

magulang >o!

2"G @ 0ala na a>ong pa>ialam, dahil

nandito >a sa loob, nasa labas >a puwede

>a ng hindi pumaso>, o>ey yan nasaloob >a

umalis >a doon!

C1;C1I @ Lasi 6Fam, binbali>an a>o ng

mga taga ;nion!

2"G @ Nandiyan na rin a>o, pero huwag

mong >alimutan na hindi >a ma>a>apaso>

>ung hindi a>o! Lung hindi mo >ini>ilala yan

o>ey lang sa a>in, dahil tapos >a na!

C1;C1I @ Ina+ano >o mFam na utang na

loob!

2"G @ 1uwag na lang, hindi mo utang na

loob, >asi >ung baga sa no, nilapastangan

mo a>o!

C1;C1I @ Paano >ita nilapastanganan?


17/40

2"G @ 6abuti pa lumabas >a na! 1indi na

a>o ma>i>ipagusap sa Fyo! umabas >a na!

6agsumbong >a!9

As a result of petitionerFs recording of the eent and alleging that the said act

of secretly taping the confrontation was illegal, priate respondent filed a

criminal case before the )egional Trial Court of Pasay City for iolation of

)epublic Act /*, entitled An Act to prohibit and penalie wire tapping and

other related iolations of priate communication, and other purposes! An

information charging petitioner of iolation of the said Act, dated 4ctober =,

$'88 is (uoted herewith.

INF+R!(TI+N

The ;ndersigned Assistant City 3iscal Accusses "ocorro #!

)amire of iolation of )epublic Act No! /*, committed as

follows.

That on or about the **nd day of 3ebruary,$'88, in Pasay City 6etro 6anila,

Philippines, and within the 5urisdiction of this

honorable court, the aboe+named accused,

"ocorro #! )amire not being authoried by

2ster "! Garcia to record the latterFs

conersation with said accused, did then

and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,

with the use of a tape recorder secretly

record the said conersation and thereafter

communicate in writing the contents of thesaid recording to other person!

Contrary to law!

Pasay City, 6etro 6anila, "eptember $=,

$'88!

6A

)IA

N4

6!

C;

N

;pon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a 6otion to Kuash the

Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense,

particularly a iolation of )!A! /*! In an order 6ay &, $'8', the trial court

granted the 6otion to Kuash, agreeing with petitioner that $9 the facts

charged do not constitute an offense under )!A! /*E and that *9 the

iolation punished by )!A! /* refers to a the taping of a communication by

a personotherthan a participant to the communication!3

3rom the trial courtFs 4rder, the priate respondent filed a Petition for )eiew

on Certiorariwith this Court, which forthwith referred the case to the Court of

Appeals in a )esolution 7by the 3irst #iision9 of %une $', $'8'!

4n 3ebruary ', $'', respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed

#ecision declaring the trial courtFs order of 6ay &, $'8' null and oid, and

holding that.

TDhe allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable

under "ection $ of )!A! /*! In thus (uashing the

information based on the ground that the facts alleged do not

constitute an offense, the respondent 5udge acted in grae

abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari!$

Conse(uently, on 3ebruary *$, $'', petitioner filed a 6otion for

)econsideration which respondent Court of Appeals denied in its

)esolution7dated %une $', $''! 1ence, the instant petition!

Petitioner igorously argues, as her main and principal issue)that the

applicable proision of )epublic Act /* does not apply to the taping of a

priate conersation by one of the parties to the conersation! "he contends

that the proision merely refers to the unauthoried taping of a priate

conersation by a party other than those inoled in the communication! #In

relation to this, petitioner aers that the substance or content of the

conersation must be alleged in the Information, otherwise the facts charged

would not constitute a iolation of )!A! /*! (3inally, petitioner agues that

)!A! /* penalies the taping of a priate communication, not a priate

conersation and that conse(uently, her act of secretly taping her

conersation with priate respondent was not illegal under the said act! !


18/40

0e disagree!

3irst, legislatie intent is determined principally from the language of a

statute! 0here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is

applied according to its eers

indeed contemplated to ma>e illegal, unauthoried tape recording of priate

conersations or communications ta>en either by the parties themseles or

by third persons! Thus.


19/40

"enator TaMada. 0ell no! 3or een, there is no ob5ection to this if all the parties >now! It is

but fair that the people whose remar>s and obserations are

being made should >now that the obserations are being

recorded!

"enator Padilla. Now, I can understand!

"enator TaMada. That is why when we ta>e statements of

persons, we say. Please be informed that whateer you say

here may be used against you! That is fairness and that is

what we demand! Now, in spite of that warning, he ma>es

damaging statements against his own interest, well, he

cannot complain any more! $ut if "ou are going to ta4e a

recording of the obser%ations and remar4s of a person

without him 4nowing that it is being taped or recorded#

without him 4nowing that what is being recorded ma" be

used against him# I thin4 it is unfair!


20/40

ignores the usual nature of con%ersationsas well the

undeniable fact that most, if not all, ciilied people hae

some aspects of their lies they do not wish to e


21/40


22/40

disciplinary measure is resorted to for the protection of the companyFs

property pending inestigation any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance

committed by the employee!$

Thus, it is not correct to conclude that petitioner G6C) had iolated

"alaarFs right to due process when she was promptly suspended! If at all,

the fault, lay with priate respondent when she ignored petitionerFs

memorandum of 4ctober 8, $'8/ giing her ample opportunity to present

7her9 side to the 6anagement! Instead, she went directly to the abor

#epartment and filed her complaint for illegal suspension without giing her

employer a chance to ealuate her side of the controersy!

But while we agree with the propriety of "alaarFs preentie suspension, we

hold that her eentual separation from employment was not for cause!

0hat is the remedy in law to rectify an unlawful dismissal so as to ma>e

whole the ictim who has not merely lost her 5ob which, under settled

%urisprudence, is a property right of which a person is not to be depried

without due process, but also the compensation that should hae accrued toher during the period when she was unemployed?

Art! *-' of the abor Code, as amended, proides.

Securit" of Tenure! @ In cases of regular employment, the

employer shall not terminate the serices of an employee

es ahead of suchtopics as Agrarian and Natural )esources )eform, ;rban and )oform and

1ousing, 1ealth, 0omen, )ole and )ights of PoopleFs 4rganiations and

1uman )ights!(

The opening paragraphs on abor states

The "tate shall affordfull protection to labor#local and

oerseas, organied and unorganied, and promote full

employment and e(uality of employment opportunities for all!

It shall guarantee the rights of all wor>ers to self+

organiation, collectie bargaining and negotiations, and

peaceful concerted actiities, including the right to stri>e in

accordance with law! They shall be entitled to securit" of

tenure, humane conditions of wor>, and a liing wage! They

shall also participate in policy and decision+ma>ing

processes affecting their rights and benefits is may be

proided by law!!72mphasis supplied9

Compare this with the sole!proision on abor in the $'-& Constitution under

the Article an #eclaration of Principles and "tate Policies that proides.


23/40

"ec! '! The state shall afford protection to labor, promote full

employment and e(uality in employment, ensure e(ual wor>

opportunities regardless of seers and employers! The "tate

shall ensure the rights of wor>ers to self+organiation,

collectie baegaining, security of tenure, and 5ust and

humane conditions of wor>! The "tate may proide for

compulsory arbitration!

To be sure, both Charters recognie security of tenure as one of the rights

of labor which the "tate is mandated to protect! But there is no gainsaying

the fact that the intent of the framers of the present Constitution was to gie

primacy to the rights of labor and afford the sector full protection, at least

greater protection than heretofore accorded them, regardless of the

geographical location of the wor>ers and whether they are organied or not!

It was then C4NC46 Commissioner, now %ustice 1ilario G! #aide, %r!, who

substantially contributed to the present formulation of the protection to labor

proision and proposed that the same be incorporated in the Article on "ocial%ustice and not 5ust in the Article on #eclaration of Principles and "tate

Policies in the light of the special importance that we are giing now to social

5ustice and the necessity of emphasiing the scope and role of social 5ustice

in national deelopment! "

If we hae ta>en pains to dele into the bac>ground of the labor proisions in

our Constitution and the abor Code, it is but to stress that the right of an

employee not to be dismissed from his 5ob e effect on 6arch *, $'8' that amended said Article to remoe any

possible ambiguity that 5urisprudence may hae generated which watered

down the constitutional intent to grant to labor full protection!9

To go bac> to the instant case, there being no eidence to show an

authoried, much less a legal, cause for the dismissal of priate respondent,

she had eery right, not only to be entitled to reinstatement, but ay well, to

full bac>wages! 3

The intendment of the law in prescribing the twin remedies of reinstatement

and payment of bac>wages is, in the former, to restore the dismissed

employee to her status before she lost her 5ob, for the dictionary meaning of

the word reinstate is to restore to a state, conditione positions etc! from

which one had been remoed$and in the latter, to gie her bac> the income

lost during the period of unemployment! Both remedies, loo>ing to the past,

would perforce ma>e her whole!

"adly, the aowed intent of the law has at times been thwarted when

reinstatement has not been forthcoming and the hapless dismissed

employee finds himself on the outside loo>ing in!

4er time, the following reasons hae been adanced by the Court for

denying reinstatement under the facts of the case and the law applicabletheretoE that reinstatement can no longer be effected in iew of the long

passage of time 7** years of litigation9 or because of the realities of the

situationE 7or that it would be inimical to the employerFs interestE )or that

reinstatement may no longer be feasibleE #or, that it will not sere the best

interests of the parties inoledE (or that the company would be pre5udiced

by the wor>ersF continued employmentE "!or that it will not sere any prudent

purpose as when superening facts hae transpired which ma>e e


24/40

maers in commercial and industrial establishmentsE 9!or is

a warehouseman of a non+profit organiation whose primary purpose is to

facilitate and ma of the findings centered principally oh her

friendFs alleged thieery and anomalous transactions as technical operationsF

support manager! "aid report merely insinuated that in iew of "alaarFs


25/40

special relationship with "aldiar, "alaar might hae had direct >nowledge

of "aldiarFs (uestionable actiities! #irect eidence implicating priate

respondent is wanting from the records!

It is also worth emphasiing that the 6aramara report came out after "aldiar

had already resigned from G6C) on 6ay &$, $'8/! "ince "aldiar did not

hae the opportunity to refute managementFs findings, the report remained

obiously one+sided! "ince the main eidence obtained by petitioner dealt

principally on the alleged culpability of "aldiar, without his haing had a

chance to oice his side in iew of his prior resignation, stringent e


26/40

fact that the conicted murderer is his son+in+law, there was basis for finding

that he was probably guilty!

4n appeal, respondent "ecretary of %ustice affirmed the BoardFs ruling! "aid

the "ecretary of %ustice in his resolution dated 6arch $$, $''&.

It is belieed therefore that the phrase any person ! ! !

un5ustly accused, conicted and imprisoned in "ection &7a9

of )!A! No! -&' refers to an indiidual who was wrongly

accused and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit,

thereby ma>ing him a ictim of un5ust imprisonment! In the

instant case, howeer, ClaimantAppellant cannot be

deemed such a ictim since a reading of the decision of his

ac(uittal shows that his e


27/40

To say then that an accused has been un5ustly conicted has to do with

the mannerof his coniction rather than with his innocence! An accused may

on appeal be ac(uitted because he did not commit the crime, but that does

not necessarily mean that he is entitled to compensation for haing been the

ictim of an un5ust coniction! If his coniction was due to an error in the

appreciation of the eidence the coniction while erroneous is not un5ust!

That is why it is not, on the other hand, correct to say as does respondent,

that under the law liability for compensation depends entirely on the

innocence of the accused!

The phrase un5ustly conicted has the same meaning as >nowingly

rendering an un5ust 5udgment in art! */ of the )eised Penal Code! 0hat

this Court held in In re Rafael C!Climaco 7applies.

In order that a 5udge may be held liable for 4nowingl"

renderingan un5ust 5udgment, it must be shown beyond

doubt that the 5udgment is un5ust as it is contrar" to lawor is

not supported b" the e%idence, and the same was made with

conscious and deliberate intent to do an in5ustice ! ! ! !

To hold a 5udge liable for the rendition of manifestly un5ust

5udgment by reason of ine


28/40

counts? 0here was BasbacioFs contribution to the

commission of the said crimes? Basbacio was @ as the

record shows @ nothing but part of the dar> shadows of that

night! ! ! !

4ne may ta>e issue with this ruling because precisely conspiracy may be

shown by concert of action and other circumstances! 0hy was petitioner with

his son+in+law? 0hy did they apparently flee together? And what about the

fact that there was bad blood between petitioner and the ictim 3ederico

Boyon? These (uestions may no longer be passed upon in iew of the

ac(uittal of petitioner but they are releant in ealuating his claim that he had

been un5ustly accused, conicted and imprisoned before he was released

because of his ac(uittal on appeal! 0e hold that in iew of these

circumstances respondent "ecretary of %ustice and the Board of Claims did

not commit a grae abuse of its discretion in disallowing petitionerFs claim for

compensation under )ep! Act No! -&'!

012)234)2, the petition is #I"6I""2#!

"4 4)#2)2#!

)epublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

6anila

3I)"T #II"I4N

G.R. No. !(#9$ Noe2be- ""' ((9

%MM PROMOTIONS = M,N,GEMENT' INC.' petitioner,

s!

N,TION,+ +,0OR RE+,TIONS COMMISSION an/ U+PI,NO +. DE +OS

S,NTOS' respondent!

&on . orciuncula for petitioner.

7ulogio Nones# Jr. for pri%ate respondent.

CRU4' J.:

The sole issue submitted in this case is the alidity of the order of respondent

National abor )elations Commission dated 4ctober &, $''*, dismissing

the petitionerFs appeal from a decision of the Philippine 4erseas


29/40

2mployment Administration on the ground of failure to post the re(uired

appeal bond!

The respondent cited the second paragraph of Article **& of the abor Code

as amended, proiding that.

In the case of a 5udgment inoling a monetary award, an

appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the

posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable

bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in an

amount e(uialent to the monetary award in the 5udgment

appealed from!

and )ule I, "ection = of the new )ules of Procedure of the N)C, as

amended, reading as follows.

"ec! =! $ond@ In case the decision of a abor Arbiter

inoles a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall

be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bondissued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by

the Commission or the "upreme Court in an amount

e(uialent to the monetary award!

The petitioner contends that the N)C committed grae abuse of discretion

in applying these rules to decisions rendered by the P42A! It insists that the

appeal bond is not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for oerseas

employment because they are already re(uired under "ection /, )ule II,

Boo> II of the P42A )ules not only to pay a license fee of P&, but also

to post a cash bond of P$, and a surety bond of P:,, thus.

;pon approal of the application, the applicant shall pay a

license fee of P&,! It shall also post a cash bond of

P$, and surety bond of P:, from a bonding

company acceptable to the Administration and duly

accredited by the Insurance Commission! The bonds shall

answer for all %alid and legal claims arising from iolations of

the conditions for the grant and use of the license, andor

accreditation and contracts of emplo"ment! The bonds shall

li>ewise guarantee compliance with the proisions of the

Code and its implementing rules and regulations relating to

recruitment and placement, the )ules of the Administration

and releant issuances of the #epartment and all liabilities

which the (dministration ma" impose! The surety bonds

shall include the condition that the notice to the principal is

notice to the surety and that any 5udgment against the

principal in connection with matters falling under P42AFs

5urisdiction shall be binding and conclusie on the surety!

The surety bonds shall be co+terminus with the alidity

period of license! 72mphasis supplied9

In addition, the petitioner claims it has placed in escrow the sum of P*,

with the Philippine National Ban> in compliance with "ection $-, )ule II,

Boo> II of the same )ule, to primarily answer for alid and legal claims of

recruited wor>ers as a result of recruitment iolations or money claims!

)e(uired to comment, the "olicitor General sustains the appeal bond

re(uirement but suggest that the rules cited by the N)C are applicable only

to decisions of the abor Arbiters and not of the P42A! Appeals from

decisions of the P42A, he says, are goerned by the following proisions of)ule , Boo> II of the P42A )ules.

"ec! :! Re3uisites for erfection of (ppeal! The appeal shall

be filed within the reglementary period as proided in

"ection $ of this )uleE shall be under oath with proof of

pa"ment of the re3uired appeal fee and the posting of a

cash or suret" bond as pro%ided in Section = of this Rule E

shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which

shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in

support thereofE the relief prayed forE and a statement of the

date when the appellant receied the appealed decision

andor award and proof of serice on the other party of such

appeal!

A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other

re(uisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period

for perfecting an appeal!

"ec! =! $ond! In case the decision of the (dministration

in%ol%es a monetar" award# an appeal b" the emplo"er shall

be perfected onl" upon the posting of a cash or suret"


30/40

bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly

accredited by the Commission in an amount e(uialent to

the monetary award! 72mphasis supplied9

The (uestion is, haing posted the total bond of P$:, and placed in

escrow the amount of P*, as re(uired by the P42A )ules, was the

petitioner still re(uired to post an appeal bond to perfect its appeal from a

decision of the P42A to the N)C?

It was!

The P42A )ules are clear! A reading thereof readily shows that in addition to

the cash and surety bonds and the escrow money, an appeal bond in an

amount e(uialent to the monetary award is re(uired to perfect an appeal

from a decision of the P42A! 4biously, the appeal bond is intended to

further insure the payment of the monetary award in faor of the employee if

it is eentually affirmed on appeal to the N)C!

It is true that the cash and surety bonds and the money placed in escrow aresupposed to guarantee the payment of all alid and legal claims against the

employer, but these claims are not limited to monetary awards to employees

whose contracts of employment hae been iolated! The P42A can go

against these bonds also for iolations by the recruiter of the conditions of its

license, the proisions of the abor Code and its implementing rules, 2!4!

*/- 7reorganiing P42A9 and the P42A )ules, as well as the settlement of

other liabilities the recruiter may incur!

As for the escrow agreement, it was presumably intended to proide for a

standing fund, as it were, to be used only as a last resort and not to be

reduced with the enforcement against it of eery claim of recruited wor>ers

that may be ad5udged against the employer! This amount may not een be

enough to coer such claims and, een if it could initially, may eentually be

eing them inade(uate for the satisfaction of

the other obligations the recruiter may incur!

Indeed, it is possible for the monetary award in faor of the employee to

eers abroad are sub5ected by

their foreign employers, against whom there is usually no direct or effectie

recourse! The oerseas recruiter is solidarily liable with a foreign employer!

The bonds and the escrow money are intended to insure more care on the

part of the local agent in its choice of the foreign principal to whom our

oerseas wor>ers are to be sent!

It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute 7or a set of

rules as in this case9, care should be ta>en that eery part thereof be gien

effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as

a hodge+podge of conflicting proisions! 5t res magis %aleat 3uam

pereat!"

;nder the petitionerFs interpretation, the appeal bond re(uired by"ection = of the aforementioned P42A )ule should be disregarded because

of the earlier bonds and escrow money it has posted! The petitioner would in

effect nullify "ection = as a superfluity but we do not see any such

redundancyE on the contrary, we find that "ection = complements "ection /

and "ection $-! The rule is that a construction that would render a proision

inoperatie should be aoidedE instead, apparently inconsistent proisions

should be reconciled wheneer possible as parts of a coordinated and

harmonious whole!

Accordingly, we hold that in addition to the monetary obligations of the

oerseas recruiter prescribed in "ection /, )ule II, Boo> II of the P42A )ules

and the escrow agreement under "ection $- of the same )ule, it is

necessary to post the appeal bond re(uired under "ection =, )ule , Boo>

II of the P42A )ules, as a condition for perfecting an appeal from a

decision of the P42A!

2ery intendment of the law must be interpreted in faor of the wor>ing class,

conformably to the mandate of the Constitution! By sustaining rather than

annulling the appeal bond as a further protection to the claimant employee,

this Court affirms once again its commitment to the interest of labor!


31/40

012)234)2, the petition is #I"6I""2#, with costs against the petitioner!

It is so ordered!


32/40

)epublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

6anila

T1I)# #II"I4N

G.R. No. )$""" %ul& #' ((

R,DIO+,5TOSHI0, PHI+IPPINES' INC.' th-ou8h its assi8nee5in5

insolenc& VICENTE %. CUN,' petitioner,

s!

THE INTERMEDI,TE ,PPE++,TE COURT' HON. +EON,RDO I. CRU4' as

%u/8e of the Re8ional T-ial Cou-t of ,n8eles Cit&' 0-anch No. +VI'

EMI+IO C. P,TINO' as assi8nee5in5insolenc& of C,R+OS an/

TERESIT, G,TM,1T,N' SHERI** O* ,NGE+ES CIT1' REGISTER O*

DEEDS O* ,NGE+ES CIT1' S,N1O M,Ruisumbing# Torres 7%angelista for petitioner.

rocopio S. $eltran# Jr. for pri%ate respondents.

0IDIN'J.:p

This is a petition for certiorariof the 6arch &$, $'8= #ecision of the then

Intermediate Appellate Court >in A!C+G!)! "P No! /$= entitled )adiola+

Toshiba Philippines, Inc! s! 1on! eonardo I! Cru, et al! denying the

petition for certiorariand mandamusE and its )esolution of %uly $, $'8=

denying the motion for reconsideration!

The antecedent facts of this case, as found by the then Intermediate

Appellate Court, are as follows.

4n %uly *, $'8, three creditors filed a petition for the

inoluntary insolency of Carlos Gatmaytan and Teresita

Gatmaytan, the priate respondents herein, the case

doc>eted as "pecial Proceeding No! $:/8 of the then Court

of 3irst Instance 7now )egional Trial Court9 of Pampanga

and Angeles City!

4n %uly ', $'8, the respondent court issued an order ta>ing

cogniance of the said petition and statinginter aliathat.

! ! ! the Court forbids the payment of any

debts, and the deliery of any property

owing and belonging to said respondents+

debtors from other persons, or, to any other

persons for the use and benefit of the same

respondents+debtors andor the transfer of

any property by and for the said

respondents+debtors to another, upon

petitionersF putting up a bond by way of

certified and reputable sureties! 7Anne< $,

Comment9!

Counsel for the petitioners+creditors informed respondent

sheriff Angeles City of the aforesaid order 7Anne< *, Ibid9

and on 6arch *=, $'8$, also communicated with counsel for

the petitioner herein regarding same order, apprising the

latter that the personal and real property which hae been

leied upon andor attached should be presered till the final

determination of the petition aforementioned! 7Annee his oath thereafter so as to be able to

perform his duties and discharge his

functions, as such!

The Court, li>ewise, sets the meeting of all

the creditors with the attendance, of course,

of the assignee, on 6arch ', $'8/, at 8.&!,

as by that time the proposals, which the

respectie representaties of the parties+

claimants desire to clear with their

principals, shall hae already been reported!

The assignee shall see to it that the

properties of the insolents which are now in

the actual or constructie custody and

management of the receier preiously

appointed by the Court on petitionersF and

claimantsF proposals be placed under thisactual or constructie custody and

management, such as he is able to do so,

as the Court hereby dissoles the

receiership preiously authoried, it haing

become a superfluity! 7Anne< 39!

4n 6ay $8, $'8/, the )egional Trial Court, Branch CII,

Pasig, 6etro 6anila, in Ciil Case No! &:'/=, issued an

order directing respondent "heriff of Angeles City, or

whoeer is acting in his behalf, to issue within seen 7-9 days

from notice thereof a final deed of sale oer the two 7*9

parcels of land coered by Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos!

$8': and //& in faor of petitioner! 7Anne< G9!

In said Ciil Case No! &:'/=, a case for collection of sum of

money coering the proceeds of teleision sets and other

appliances, the then Court of 3irst Instance of )ial, Branch

II, Pasig, 6etro 6anila, issued a writ of preliminary

attachment on 3ebruary $:, $'8 upon application of the

petitioner, as plaintiff, which put up a bond of P&:,!!

4n 6arch /, $'8, &. P!6!, ley on attachment was done


34/40

in faor of petitioner on the real properties registered in the

names of spouses Carlos Gatmaytan and Teresita

Gatmaytan under TCT Nos! $8': and //& of the

)egistry of #eeds of Angeles City, per 2ntry No! -*$= on

said titles! 7Anne< A and B9!

4n #ecember $, $'8, a decision was rendered in faor of

petitioner, ordering priate respondents and their co+

defendant Peoples Appliance Center, Inc! to pay petitioner,

5ointly and seerally, the sum of P-*$,8*:!'$ plus interest

thereon of $/per annumfrom 4ctober $*, $'-' until fully

paidE P*,!, for and attorneyFs feesE and the costs of

suit 7Anne< :, Comment9! After the said decision in the

aforementioned Ciil Case No! &:'/= became final and

e


35/40

"ec! &* @ As soon as an assignee is elected or appointed

and (ualified, the cler> of the court shall, by an instrument

under his hand and seal of the court, assign and coney to

the assignee all the real and personal property, estate, and

effects of the debtor with all his deeds, boo>s, and papers

relating thereto, and such assignment shall relate bac> to the

commencement of the proceedings in insolency, and shall

relate bac> to the acts upon the ad5udication was founded,

and by operation of law shall est the title to all such

property, estate, and effects in the assignee, although the

same is then attached on mesne process, as the property of

the debtor! "uch assignment shall operate to est in the

assignee all of the estate of the insolent debtor not eing gien by the

defendant, if the claim upon which the attachment suit was

commenced is proed against the estate of the debtor, the

plaintiff may proe the legal costs and disbursements of the

suit, and of the >eeping of the property, and the amount

thereof shall be a preferred debt!

and the fact that petitioner and its counsel hae full >nowledge of the

proceedings in the insolent case, argue that the subse(uent Certificate of

"ale on August &, $'8$, issued in faor of petitioner oer the sub5ect

properties, was issued in bad faith, in iolation of the law and is not e(uitable

for the creditors of the insolent debtorsE and pursuant to the aboe (uoted

"ection -', petitioner should not be entitled to the transfer of the sub5ect

properties in its name!

PetitionerFs contention is impressed with merit! The proision of the aboe+

(uoted "ection &*, of the Insolency aw is ery clear @ that attachments

dissoled are those leied within one 7$9 month ne


36/40

Neither can the sheriffFs sale in e


37/40


38/40

-$==, 9issued )esolution No! *&$& and the subse(uent resolutions in

(uestion!

4n 3ebruary *, $''*, in iew of the perceied ambiguity in the meaning of

par! 7d9, particularly in relation to par! 7c9, "ec! &, )!A! -$==, petitioner filed

with C4622C a 6otion for Clarification of its )esolution No! *&$& in(uiring

whether the members of the "angguniang Bayan of ParaMa(ue and the other

municipalities of 6etro 6anila enumerated therein, which are all single+

district municipalities, would be elected by district in 6ay $$, $''* or in the

$'': regular elections!

6eanwhile, on 6arch &, $''* C4622C issued )esolution No! *&-'

approing the guidelines submitted by the Proincial 2lection "uperisors

and 6unicipal 2lection )egistrars concerned pursuant to )esolution No!

*&$&, and stating therein its purpose in recommending to Congress the

districtingapportionment of "angguniang Panlungsod and "angguniang

Bayan seats, i!e!, to reduce the number of candidates to be oted for in the

6ay $$, $''* synchronied elections! In this Pro5ect of Apportionment,

ParaMa(ue together with the other twele 7$*9 municipalities in the 6etro6anila Area was diided into two 7*9 districts with si< 7=9 electie councilors

for each district!

4n 6arch $, $''*, C4622C resoled petitionerFs 6otion for Clarification

by interpreting "ec! &, )!A! -$==, to mean that the election of electie

members of the "angguniang Bayan, by district, of the thirteen 7$&9

municipalities in the 6etro 6anila Area shall apply in the 6ay $$, $''*

elections 7)esolution ;N#! '*+$, prom! 6arch $, $''*9! Petitioner says

that he receied copy of )esolution ;N#! '*+$ on 6arch $&, $''*!

4n April -, $''*, apparently not satisfied with this third )esolution of

C4622C, petitioner filed the instant petition asserting that under par! 7d9,

"ec! & of )!A! -$== the electie members of the "angguniang Panlungsod

and the "angguniang Bayan, for purposes of the 6ay $$, $''* regular

elections, shall be elected at large in accordance with e


39/40


40/40

That is the true import of par! 7d9! Conse(uently, as 0e iew it, where he

stands, petitioner must fall!

012)234)2, finding no abuse of discretion, much less grae, on the part

of respondent, and for lac> of merit, theinstant petition is #I"6I""2#! No costs!

"4 4)#2)2#!

Statcon 1st Assignment

Documents

Transcript of Statcon 1st Assignment