legal research-exercise 3 (2015-2016)

MANALO, MARIA ANNA EXERCISE 3

(1) *FOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW!!!!! In the case of Encinas vs.

National Bookstore,1 the Court stressed that the factual findings of the trial

court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and

conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. However, there are several

exceptions to the rule, namely:

(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or

conjectures;

(4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension

of facts;

(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues

of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and

appellee;

(7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial

court;

(8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific

evidence on which they are based;

(9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts

not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a

different conclusion; and

(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the

absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record

**David vs. Arroyo

(2) In the case of Alonzo et. al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court et. al.,2 hard cases

can be understood as those cases where a construction or an interpretation of a

statute has limited its intent, and thus its application. It is considered as a

1 G.R. No. 162704, 19 November 2004.2 G.R. No. 72873, 28 May 1987.


“creating” a bad law because in the course of interpreting and applying the

statute to the letter, its spirit or intent is not the only thing that is lost, but also

how justice is implemented.

(3) In the case of Imbong et. al. vs. Ochoa Jr., et. al.,3 the court cited the case of

Scotland’s Inner House of the Court of Session the case of Doogan and Wood v.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board,4 where it was ruled that the

midwives cannot be required to delegate, supervise or support staff in

administering abortions due to their conscientious objections.

In the case of Secretary of Defense vs. Manalo,5 the court cited Ortiz vs. Guatemala,6

a case decided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, where the

testimony of Sister Diana Ortiz regarding her abduction and torture were considered

as findings of fact of the Commission.

In the case of Central Bank Employees Association vs. Executive Secretary,7 the court

cited Hooper vs. Secretary of state for Work and Pensions,8 a case in the United

Kingdom, where it was determined that “once the State has chosen to confer

benefits, discrimination contrary to law may occur where favorable treatment

already afforded to one group is refused to another, even thought he State is under

no obligation to provide that favorable treatment.”

(4) A second motion for reconsideration is prohibited and a denial of a motion for

reconsideration is final since in the opinion of the Court nothing more is left to

be discussed or clarified. However, it was emphasized in the case of Systra

Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,9 that a second motion for

reconsideration is forbidden except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons, and

3 G.R. No. 204819, 8 April 2014.4 20 130 CSIH 36.5 G.R. No. 180906, 7 October 2008.6 Case 10.526, Report No. 31/96, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc.7 rev. at 332 (1997).7 G.R. No. 148208, 15 December 2004.8 [2002] EWHC 191 (Admin).9 G.R. No. 176290, 21 September 2007.


only upon express leave is first obtained. It was also stressed in the case of Apo

Fruits Corporation et. al. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines,10 that the Court

recognizes the need to bend the procedural rule on filing a second motion for

reconsideration “by reversing judgments and recalling their entries in the

interest of substantial justice and where special and compelling reason called for

such actions.”

(5) Dr. Perla Iglesia is correct in asserting her beliefs as grounds for refusing to

administer birth control pills. It was clarified in the case of Imbong, et. al. vs.

Ochoa Jr., et. al.11 that the Republic Act No. 10354, also known as the

Reproductive Health Act of 2012 or RH Law, allows health providers to refuse or

“opt out” in rendering reproductive health services due to their religious beliefs.

The Court emphasized that religious freedom should be accorded primacy in the

instance that there is a conflict between one’s religious beliefs and interests of

the State; and “[t]he punishment of a healthcare service provider, who fails

and/or refuses to refer a patient to another, or who declines to perform

reproductive health procedure on a patient because of incompatible religious

beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which the court cannot

allow.”

(6) Reinstatement would seem to be unfeasible due to the strained relations

between Ruby Diamante and Gold Oro, and is thus entitled to her separation

pay. It was discussed in the case of Bank of Lubao, Inc. vs. Rommel J. Manabat

et. al.,12 that it would be more prudent for an employee to order payment of

separation pay instead of reinstatement especially where the relations between

the parties had been unduly strained by their irreconcilable differences. Also

provided in the aforementioned case, she is entitled to separation pay as well as

the full backwages computed from the time of her illegal termination up to the

finality of the decision.

10 G.R. No. 164195, 12 October 2010.11 G.R. No. 204819, 8 April 2014.12 G.R. No. 188722, 1 February 2012.


(7) Bheng-Bheng can seek, aside from exemplary damages and costs of funeral

expenses, damages for loss of earning capacity. In the case of Tan et. al. vs. OMC

Carriers, Inc. et. al.,13 the Court emphasized the rule that documentary evidence

should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity,

except in cases where (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than

the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may

be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work, no documentary

evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker

earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. According to

People vs. Lagat,14The amount of such damages are based on two factors: 1) the

number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed; and 2)

the rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs of the deceased should be

fixed. The first factor is based on the formula (2/3 x 80 age of the deceased at

the time of his death = life expectancy) which is adopted from the American

Expectancy Table of Mortality. Net income is computed by deducting from the

amount of the victim’s gross income the amount of his living expenses. As there

is no proof of Jhoel’s age and living expenses, it would be impossible to arrive at

an exact amount.

(8) The case of People vs. Bernal15 provides a distinction between habitual

delinquency and recidivism, the former being defined in Paragraph 5 of Article

62 of the Revised Penal Code, “a person shall be deemed to be habitually

delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last

conviction of the crime of robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is found

guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.” On the other hand, a

recidivist is defined in Paragraph 9, Article 14 of the same code, “that it is

committed by a person who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have

been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the

13 G.R. No. 190521, 12 January 2011.14 G.R. No. 187044, 12 September 2011.15 G.R. No. L-44988, 31 October 1936.


same title of the Code.” The Court was able to clarify that recidivism is not a

factor or element of habitual delinquency, and that the elements and the basis

of each are different. In recidivism, it is sufficient, that on the date of his trial,

the accused was convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the

same title; while for a habitual delinquent a conviction of the crimes specified as

well as the date of the last conviction takes place ten years before the

commission of the last offense, it is also necessary that the crimes previously

committed be prior to the commission of the offense with which he is charged a

third time or oftener.

(9) No, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) cannot represent Dolores

Umbridge in the damage suit. In the case of Urbano vs. Chaves,16 the Court ruled

that a public official cannot expect the OSG to represent or defend him for a

wrongful act which cannot be attributed to the State. The OSG in representing

the State, and the State which can only speak and act only by law and that which

is unlawful is not the word or deed of the State, but the mere wrong or trespass

of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. Such was also

emphasized in the case of Pascual vs. Beltran,17 where “the Court further ruled

that its observation should apply as well to a public official who is hailed to court

in a civil suit for damages arising from a felony allegedly committed by him. Any

pecuniary liability he may be held to account for on the occasion of such civil suit

is for his own account. The Sate is not liable for the same. A fortiori, the Office of

the Solicitor General likewise has no authority to represent him in such a civil

suit for damages.”

(10) Atty. Chi’s motion to dismiss is correct. In the case of Pacaña vs. Rovila Water

Supply,18 the Court clarified Pargraph 1, Section 1, 42, “Rule 16 of the Rules of

Court provides for the period within which to file a motion to dismiss under the

grounds enumerated. Specifically, the motion should be filed within the time for,

16 G.R. Nos. 87977 and 88578, 19 March 1990.17 G.R. 129318, 27 October 2006.18 G.R. No. 168979, 2 December 2013.


but before the filing of, the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a

claim. Equally important to this provision is Section 1,43 Rule 9 of the Rules of

Court which states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion

to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for the following

grounds: 1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2) litis

pendencia; 3) res judicata; and 4) prescription.”

(11) The enumeration is exclusive in the sense that what must be included are

those belonging in the same kind or class, as established in the legal maxim or

rule of ejusdem generis. As applied in the case of Guzman vs. COMELEC et. al.,19

where the Court applied the maxim in the enumeration found in Sec. 1, Chapter

1, Title V, Book IV of the Administrative Code 1987 which means that only the

fixed public infrastructures for use of the public are regarded as public works.

Oxford dictionary defines a gemstone as a precious or semiprecious stone, especially

one cut, polished, and used in a piece of jewelry, and Merriam-Webster defines it as

a mineral or petrified material that when cut and polished can be used in jewelry.

The Gemological Institute of America20 provides a definition for each of the

mentioned semi-precious stones,i as well as their use in jewelry making. Applying the

maxim of ejusdem generis as defined in the case wherein, “[i]t is a general rule of

statutory construction that where general words follow an enumeration of persons

or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not

to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons

or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned,” the

aforementioned semi-precious stones can be deemed included in the intent of the

statute.

(12) Yes, the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the complaint. In the case of

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of Appeals et. al.,21 the Court, after clarifying the

19 G.R. No. 182380, 28 August 2009.20 http://www.gia.edu/gia-about21 G.R. No. 122191, 8 October 1998.


applicable law, determined that the “connecting factor” or “point of contact” is

the place where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. The Court took

into consideration the following contacts to account and evaluate according to

the relative importance with respect to a particular issue: (a) the place where

the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;

(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of

business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between

the parties is centered.

(13) The exceptions to the rule on secrecy of bank deposits are provided in the

cases of Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan,22 and PNB vs. Gancayco,23 where the Court

enumerated those exceptions in Republic Act No. 1405, or otherwise known as

the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law:

(1) Upon written permission of depositor

(2) In cases of impeachment

(3) The examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in

cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and

(4) The money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

In addition to this are those cases when there is unexplained wealth that are similar

to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no reason.

22 G.R. Nos. 157294-95, 30 November 2006.23 G.R. No. L-18343, 30 September 1965.

i Tourmaline – a mineral that comes in many colors, including the remarkable intense violer-to-blue gems.Aquamarine – blue to slightly greenish-blue variety of the mineral beryl.Peridot – yellow-green gem variety of the mineral olivine. Found as nodules in volcanic rock, occasionally as crystals lining veins in mountains and occasionally inside meteorites.Pearl – produced in the bodies of marine and freshwater mollusks naturally or cultured by people with great care. Lustrous, smooth, subtly-colored pearls are jewelry staples, especially strandsCoral – organic and formed by living organisms.Amber – an organic gem, fossilized resin, color of the burnished sun-orange or golden brown

legal research-exercise 3 (2015-2016)

Documents