Government of the Philippine Islands vs Monte de Piedad

G.R. No. 9959

35 PH 728, 751-753

December 13, 1916

Petitioner: Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by Executive Treasurer

Respondent: El Monte de Piedad Y Caja de Ajorras de Manila

FACTS: On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake in the Philippines took place. The Spanish dominions provided $400,000 aid as received by the National Treasury as relief of the victims of the earthquake. The government used the money as such but $80,000 was left untouched and was thus invested to Monte de Piedad bank, which was in turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the same amount. 

In June 1983, the Department of Finance called upon the same bank to return the $80,000 deposited from before. The Monte de Piedad declined to comply with this order on the ground that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and not the Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement because the Philippine government is not the affected party. On account of various petitions of the persons, the Philippine Islands brought a suit against Monte de Piedad for a recovery of the $80,000 together with interest, for the benefit of those persons and their heirs. Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is authorized to file a reimbursement of the money of the people deposited in respondent bank. 

HELD: The Court held that the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint/reimbursement against respondent bank in accordance to the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government is the sole protector of the rights of the people thus, it holds an inherent supreme power to enforce laws which promote public interest. The government has the right to "take back" the money intended fro people.   The government has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no other person is entrusted with it.  

Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was thereby GRANTED. The Court ordered that respondent bank return the amount to the rightful heirs with interest in gold or coin in Philippine peso.

• Constitutional Law 1: State Functions / Concept of State (Textbook: Cruz, Professor: Atty. Usita)

♥ Reese Corpuz

De Leon vs Esguerra

G.R. No. 78059

153 SCRA 602

August 31, 1987

Petitioner: Alfredo M. De Leon, et al.

Respondents: Hon. Benjamin B. Esguerra in his capacity as
OIC Governor in the province of Rizal, et al.

FACTS: Petitioner was elected as Barangay Captain together with other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Municipality of Taytay, Pronice of Rizal in a Barangay election held under Barangay Election Act of 1982. 

Petitioner received a Memorandum from OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra which provided the designation of respondent Florentino Magno as Barangay Captain of the same barangay and the other respondents as members of the barangay Council of the same barangay and municipality. Petitioners maintain that Sec 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 provides that the terms of office shall be six (6) years which shall continue until their successors shall have elected and qualified. Also, in accordance with the recent ratification of the 1987 Constitution, it seems that respindent OIC Governor no longer had the authority to replace them as well as designate successors. 

Petitioner prayed that the Memorandum be declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited from taking over their positions.

ISSUE: Whether or not designation of respondents to replace petitioners was valid.

HELD: The Court ruled in the negative. SC declared that the Memorandum issued by respondent OIC Governor designating respondents as Barangay Captain and Councilmen of Barangay Dolores has no legal force and effect. 

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date therefore, the provisional constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. Effectivity of the Constitution is also immediately upon its ratification.

• Constitutional Law 1: 1987 Constitution (Textbook: Cruz, Professor: Atty. Usita)

♥ Reese Corpuz

PVTA vs CIR

G.R. No. L-32052

65 SCRA 416

July 25, 1975

Petitioner: Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration

Respondent: Court of Industrial Relations 

FACTS: Private respondents filed a petition seeking relief for their alleged overtime services (in excess of their 8 regular hours a day) and the failure to pay for said compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444.

• Section 1: The legal working day for any person employed by another shall not be of more than eight (8) hours daily.

Petitioner denies allegations for lack of a cause of action and jurisdiction. 

Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari on grounds that the corporation is exercising governmental functions and is therefore exempt from CA No. 444 which was denied and dismissed by RTC and CA. Motion for Reconsideration were also DENIED.

ISSUE: Whether or not PVTA discharges governmental and not proprietary functions and is exempt from CA No. 444.

HELD: It is an inherent state function which makes government required to support its people and promote their general welfare. This case explains and portrays the expanded role of government necessitated by the increased responsibility to provide for the general welfare.

The Court held that the distinction and between constituent and ministrant functions, which the Chief Justice points out, is already irrelevant considering the needs of the present time. He says that "The growing complexities of modern society have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government obsolete." The distinction between constituent and ministrant functions is now considered obsolete. 

The Court affirms that the Petition as well as the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration be DENIED. 

• Constitutional Law 1: State Functions / Concept of State (Constituent and Ministrant) (Textbook: Cruz, Professor, Atty. Usita)

♥ Reese Corpuz

Gonzales vs COMELEC

G.R. No. L-28196

21 SCRA 774

November 9, 1967

Petitioner: Ramon A. Gonzalez / Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA)

Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

FACTS: This case is composed of consolidated cases filed separately by Petitioner Gonzalez and PHILCONSA assailing for the declaration of nullity of RA. No. 4913 and R.B.H. No. 1 and 3. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions (Resolution of Both Houses/R.B.H.):

1. R.B.H No. 1: Proposes that Sec 5, Art VI of Constitution be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120 in accordance with the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be apportioned among several provinces and that each province shall have at least one (1) member.

2. R.B.H. No. 2: Calls for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, which will be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November 1971.

3. R.B.H. No. 3: Proposes that Sec 16, Art VI of the Constitution be amended so as to authorize Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without the need to forfeit their respective seats in Congress.

Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which became RA No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people at the general elections on November 14, 1967. This act fixes the date and manner of elevtion for the proposed amendments to be voted upon by the people, and appropriates funds for said election.

Petitioners assail the validity/constitutionality of RA No. 4913 and for the prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain COMELEC from implementing or complying with the said law. PHILCONSA also assails R.B.H No. 1 and 3.

ISSUE:

1.) Whether or not RA No. 4913 is unconstitutional.

2.) Whether or not the issue involves a political question.

HELD: 

1.) Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in this provision that states that the election referred to is special, different from the general election. The Congress deemed it best to submit the amendments for ratification in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. Petition is therefore DENIED.

2.) SC also noted that the issue is a political question because it attacks the wisdom of the action taken by Congress and not the authority to take it. A political question is not subject to review by the Court.

• Constitutional Law 1: CH 2: Constitution; Political vs Justiciable Question (Textbook: Cruz, Professor: Atty. Usita)

♥ Reese Corpuz

Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary

G.R. No. 83896

194 SCRA 317

February 22, 1991

Petitioner: Civil Liberties Union

Respondent: Executive Secretary

FACTS: Consolidated petitions are being resolved jointly as both seek for the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 (EO No. 284) issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.

EO No. 284 allows members of the Cabinet, their Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries to hold other than their government positions in addition to their primary positions.

• Section 1: A Cabinet member, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary or other appointive officials of the Executive Department may, in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two (2) positions in the government and government corporations and receive corresponding compensation thereof.

• Section 2: If they hold more than the requisites of Section 1, they must relinquish the excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank but in no case shall any officer hold not more than two (2) positions other than his primary position.

• Section 3: At least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation should either be a Secretary, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary.

Petitioners are challenging EO No. 284's unconstitutionality as its provisions are in direct contrast with Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in government are those provided in the Constitution namely: 1) the Vice President may be appointed as a Cabinet member under Section 3(2) of Article VII; 2) The Secretary of Justice is and ex-officio of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8, Article VIII.

Constitutional provisions:

• Section 13, Article VII: The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet and their Deputies or Assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, directly or indirectly, during their tenure, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

• Section 8, Article VIII: Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. 

ISSUE: Whether or not EO No. 284 is constitutional.

HELD: The Court ruled in the negative.

It has been held that in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times and the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed.

The legislative intent of both Constitutional provisions is to prevent government officials from holding multiple positions in the government for self enrichment which is a betrayal of public trust.

The provisions of EO No. 284 above-mentioned are in direct contradiction to the express mandate provided by the Constitutional provisions (Sec 13, Art VII and Sec 8, Art VIII). The Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, shall reign supreme over any other statute. When there is conflict, it shall be resolved in favor of the highest law of the land. Thus, the Court held that EO No. 284 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a result, DENR Secretary Fulgenio Factoran, Jr., DILF Secretary Luis Santos, DOH Secretary Alfredo Bengzon and DBM Secretary Guillermo Carague are ordered to immediately relinquish their offices and employment. 

WHEREFORE, subject to the qualifications stated, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 284 is hereby declared null and void and is accordingly set aside.

• Constitutional Law 1: CH 2: 1987 Constitution; Supremacy of the Constitution (Textbook: Cruz, Professor: Atty. Usita)
• Statutory Construction: CH 11: Constitutional Construction (Textbook: Agpalo, Professor: Atty. Bathan)

♥ Reese Corpuz