non-impair part 2 & expost facto part2

8/17/2019 Non-impair Part 2 & Expost Facto Part2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/non-impair-part-2-expost-facto-part2 1/4

AURELIO TIRO (City Superintendent of Schools of Cebu

City) vs. HON A!A"ITO HONTANOSAS# C$I of Cebu# %&fr&

$in&ncin' Enterprise &nd &rcelino %&fr&

Facts: Zafra Financing Enterprise sued Aurelio Tiro in his official

capacity as Superintendent of Schools in Cebu City. It appears

that Zafra had extended loans to public school teachers in Cebu

City and the teachers concerned executed proissory notes

and special po!ers of attorney in favor of Zafra to ta"e and

collect their salary chec"s fro the #ivision $ffice in Cebu City.

%o!ever& Tiro forbade the collection of the chec"s on the basisof Circul&r No *# series *+,+: '(rohibiting (ayent of Salary

to Any (erson $ther Than the Eployees Concerned& Except

As (rovided %erein.' )*eorandu $rder +o. ,- dated

February & /,012:

This practice should be discouraged in vie! of its adverse

effects on the efficiency and orale of eployees !hose

incentive to !or" is necessarily ipaired& since their salary

or a portion thereof goes to other persons. To curb this

un!holesoe practice& it is hereby directed that

henceforth no cashier or disbursing officer shall pay to

attorneys3in3fact

Zafra sought to copel Tiro to honor the special po!ers of

attorney4 to declare Circular +o. 5/ to be illegal4 and to a"e

Tiro pay attorney6s fees and daages. The trial court granted

the prayer of Zafra but the clai for oney !as disallo!ed

on

the ground that he acted in good faith in ipleenting Circular

+o. 5/. Tiro no! see"s in this petition for revie! a reversal.

7uling:

The core issue is whether or not Circular No. 21 is valid and

enforceable and the answer is definitely in the affirmative. The

salary chec" of a governent officer or eployee such as a

teacher does not belong to hi before it is physically delivered

to hi. 8ntil that tie the chec" belongs to the 9overnent.

Accordingly& before there is &ctu&l deli-ery of the chec.# the

p&yee h&s no po/er o-er it4 he cannot assign it !ithout theconsent of the 9overnent. $n this basis Circular +o. 5/

stands on fir legal footing.

SEC. ,)b2. Power to regulate. ; The #epartent %ead

shall have po!er to proulgate& !hoever he ay see fit to

do so& all rules& regulations& orders& circular x x x

SEC. 5/. Deductions Prohibited. ; +o person shall a"e

any deduction !hatsoever fro the salaries of teachers

except under specific authority of la!

The #epartent %ead shall have po!er to proulgate& !hoever

he ay see fit to do so& all rules& regulations& orders& circular&

eorandus& not contrary to la!& necessary to regulate theproper !or"ing and haronious and efficient adinistration of

each and all of the offices and dependencies of his #epartent.

%&fr&0s cl&i1 th&t the Circul&r i1p&irs the obli'&tion of

contr&cts /ith the te&chers is b&seless For the Circular does

not prevent Zafra fro collecting the loans. The Circular erely

a"es the 9overnent a non3participant in their collection

!hich is !ithin its copetence to do.

RITA CALEON vs. A!US 2E3ELO"ENT COR"ORATION

&nd CA

Facts: (rivate respondent Agus #evelopent Corporation is the

o!ner of a parcel of land in Sapaloc& *anila& !hich it leased to

petitioner 7ita Caleon for a onthly rental of (/1<.<<

. (etitioner

constructed on the lot le&sed & 45door &p&rt1ent buildin'.

=ithout the consent of the private respondent& the petitioner

sub3leased t!o of the four doors of the apartent to 7olando

9uevarra and Felicisia Estrada for a onthly rental of

(-<.<< each.

8pon learning of the sub3lease& Agus #evelopent through

counsel deanded in !riting that the petitioner vacate the

leased preises. For failure of petitioner to coply !ith the

deand& private respondent filed a coplaint for e>ectent !ith

the *TC of *anila against the petitioner citing as ground

therefor the provisions of 6&t&s "&1b&ns& 6l' 7# Section 7&

!hich is the unauthori?ed sub3leasing of part of the leased

preises to third

persons !ithout securing the consent of the

lessor !ithin the re@uired 0<3day period. *TC ordered petitioner

to vacate4 petitioner appealed to 7TC4 7TC affired *TC4

Appeal to CA.

7uling:

(etitioner is of the vie! that atas (abansa lg. 5 is notapplicable because !hat she leased !as her o!n apartent

house !hich does not include a sublease of the lot she leasedfro private respondent on !hich the apartent is constructed.(etitioner6s contention is untenable.

This issue has already been laid to rest in the case of Duellomev. Gotico !here this Court ruled that the lease of a buildingnaturally includes the lease of the lot& and the rentals of thebuilding includes those of the lot. Thus: “the lease of a building would naturally include the lease of the lot and that the rentalsof the building include the rentals of the lot. 6&t&s "&1b&ns&6l' 7# 8An Act Re'ul&tin' Rent&ls of 2/ellin' Units or of L&nd On 9hich Another0s 2/ellin' is Loc&ted &nd $or Other "urposes8 sho!s that the sub>ect atter of the la! is theregulation of rentals and is intended only for d!elling units

!ithspecified onthly rentals constructed before the la! becaeeffective. In any event& it is no! beyond @uestion that theconstitutional guaranty of non3ipairent of obligations of contract is liited by and sub>ect to the exercise of police po!er of the state

RO2OL$O T !AN%ON &nd !RE!ORIO L LIRA ("ro-inci&l

Sheriff of Iloilo) vs. HON SANCHO : INSERTO# C$I Iloilo#RAN2OL"H C TA;ANLAN!IT &nd ESTE6AN C TA;ANLAN!IT

Facts: $n August 51& /,,& petitioner 7odolfo 9an?on initiated

proceedings to extra3>udicially foreclose a real estate ortgage

executed by the Ta>anlangit in his favor. The #eed of 7eal

Estate *ortgage executed on *arch /,& /,, bet!een

7andolph Ta>anlangit and Esteban T&<&nl&n'it &s 1ort'&'ors

on one hand and 7odolfo !&n=on &s 1ort'&'ee on the other hand !as to secure the payent by the Ta>anlangits of a

proissory note aounting to (B<&<<<.<<

in favor of 9an?on.

The ortgage covered a parcel of residential land )#istrict of

*olo& Iloilo City2.

Thereafter& 9regorio ira& in his capacity as ex3oficio provincial

sheriff of Iloilo served personal notice of the foreclosure. ira

also caused the publication in a ne!spaper of general

circulation in the City and (rovince of Iloilo. (etitioners filed an

action to declare the extra>udicial foreclosure proceedings and

all proceedings ta"en in connection there!ith null and void. The

Tan>anlangits aintained that the real estate ortgage !as an

entirely different transaction bet!een the Ta>anlangits and

9an?on fro the sale of ot +o. /,<< ebodied in the absolutedeed of sale of realty. They further aintained that the extra3

>udicial foreclosure proceedings

7uling: The issue raised before us is /hether or not the tri&l

court 1&y order the c&ncell&tion of & 1ort'&'e lien

annotated in a Torrens Certificate of Title to secure the payent

of a proissory note &nd substitute such 1ort'&'e lien /ith

& surety bond approved by the sae court to secure the

payent of the proissory note.

A 6ortgage directly and iediately sub>ects the property upon

!hich it is iposed& !hoever the possessor ay be& to the

fulfillent of the obligation for !hose security it !as constituted.6

Sale or transfer cannot affect or release the ortgage. Apurchaser is necessarily bound to ac"no!ledge and respect the

encubrance to !hich is sub>ect the purchased thing and !hich

is at the disposal of the creditor 6in order that he& under the

ters of the contract& ay recover the aount of his credit

therefro.6 the ortgage subsists not!ithstanding changes of

o!nership4 the last transferee is >ust as uch of a debtor as the

first one4 and this& independent of !hether the transferee "no!s

or not the person of the ortgagee. So it is& that a ortgage lien

is inse!arable fro the property ortgaged. All subse@uent



purchasers thereof ust respect the ortgage and cannot be

substituted by a surety bond as ordered by the trial court

.

The @uestioned orders violate the non3ipairent of contracts

clause guaranteed under the Constitution. Substitution of the

ortgage !ith a surety bond to secure the payent of the

(B<&<<<.<< note !ould in effect change the ters and

conditions of the ortgage contract. Even before trial on the

very issues affecting the contract& the respondent court has

directed a deviation fro its ters& diinished its efficiency& and

dispensed !ith a priary condition.

LON! ISLAN2 9ATER SU""L: CO 3 6ROO>L:N (*?+@)

Facts: An existing syste of !ater supply in a unicipality!hich is the property of private individuals and is operatedunder a contract !ith the unicipal corporation for furnishing it!ith a portion of its needed supply of !ater under rates fixed bythe contract is private property !hich ay be ac@uired by the

public in the exercise of the po!er of einent doain on the

payent of a >ust copensation

& including copensation for theterination of the contract. $n Septeber /& /11/& it enteredinto a contract !ith the To/n of Ne/ Lots by !hich it agreed tolay !ater pipes and ains in the streets of +e! ots and supplythe to!n !ith !ater. The to!n& on the other hand& agreed to pay

for hydrants to be furnished and supplied& as provided in the

contract at a specified rate per hydrant& the nuber of hydrants

to be not less than 5<<. The ter of the contract !as t!enty3fiveyears. This contract !as odified on Duly 5& /11& but theodification contains nothing aterial to this controversy. In/110& by Ch&pter 7# the To!n of +e! ots !as annexed toand erged in the City of roo"lyn& to be "no!n thereafter asthe T!enty3Sixth =ard

of said city.

The fourth section of this act provided& aong other things& that:

6the aount annually payable by said to!n for !ater supplied to it under existing contracts bet!een it and theong Island =ater3Supply Copany& shall& after this actta"es effect& during the ters of said contract& or until said

city shall purchase or ac@uire the property of said !ater copany& as in the next section provided& be levied andcollected fro the property situated and taxable !ithin theterritory hereby annexed& and such aount shall be paid tothe said !ater copany by said city as it falls due fro tieto tie under said contracts& and the said city of roo"lynshall not distribute or furnish !ater for consuption of use!ithin said territory& or lay any pipes or ains for thedistribution or supply of !ater !ithin said territory& until theexpiration of the charter of said copany& or until the saidcity shall purchase or ac@uire the property of said copany&as in the next section provided.6

y section & the city !as given po!er to purchase or condenthe property of the copany !ithin t!o years& but did neither. In

*?+# the le'isl&ture p&ssed &nother &ct (L&/s *?+# p +,B#c 4?*)# &uthori=in' the City of 6roo.lyn to conde1n theproperty of the co1p&ny& the first section of !hich is asfollo!s: '"ection 1. The !ublic interest re#uires the ac#uisitionby the City of $roo%lyn& for the !ublic use of the reservoir& wells&machinery& !i!es& franchises and all other !ro!erty of the 'ong (sland )ater "u!!ly Com!any& and the said City of $roo%lyn ishereby authori*ed to ac#uire the same for such use by condemnation& free of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever.

7uling: $ur in@uiry ust be directed to the @uestion !hether any rights of the !ater3supply copany secured by theconstitution of the 8nited States have been violated.

=ith reference to the first part of this contention& it is said that in/11/ the to!n of +e! ots ade a contract !ith the !ater3supply copany by !hich for each and every year during theter of 5 years it covenanted to pay to the copany so uchper hydrant for hydrants furnished and supplied by it4 that theact of annexation continued the burden of this obligation uponthe territory !ithin the liits of the to!n& although thereafter theto!n& as a separate unicipality& ceased to exist& and theterritory becae siply a !ard of the city of roo"lyn4 that thecondenation proceedings destroyed this contract& andreleased the territory fro any obligation to pay the stipulatedhybrant rental.

All private property is held sub>ect to the deands of a publicuse. The constitutional guaranty of >ust copensation is not aliitation of the po!er to ta"e& but only a condition of itsexercise. =henever public uses re@uire& the governent ayappropriate any private property on the payent of >ustcopensation. That the supply of !ater to a city is a publicpurpose cannot be doubted& and hence the condenation of a!ater3supply syste ust be recogni?ed as !ithin theun@uestioned liits of the po!er of einent doain. It attersnot to !ho the !ater3supply syste belongs& individual or corporation& or !hat franchises are connected !ith it4 all ay be

ta"en for public uses upon payent of >ust copensation. It isnot disputed by counsel that& !ere there no contract bet!eenthe copany and the to!n& the !ater!or"s ight be ta"en bycondenation.

In other !ords& the prohibition against a la! ipairing theobligation of contracts stays the po!er of einent doain inrespect to property !hich other!ise could be ta"en by it.

LA INSULAR vs. RA$AEL ACHUCA !O5TAUCO &ndANUEL NU6LA CO5SION!

Facts: a Insular is a coercial partnership engaged in theanufacture of cigars and cigarettes in the city of *anila. $nDuly /& /,/-& a contract !as entered into bet!een its generalagent and the t!o defendants& *anuel +ubla Co3Siong and7afael *achuca 9o3Tauco& !hereby the plaintiff becaeobliged to supply cigarettes daily to *anuel +ubla Co3Siong in a@uantity of not less than 53 boxes of t!o thousand pac"ageseach. The price !as fixed at (/5 per box& payent to be ade!ithin the first five days of the onth next follo!ing thesuccessive deliveries.

It appears that !hen the contract above3entioned !asexecuted cigarettes !ere sub>ect to a specific tax of the peso for each thousand cigarettes. This tax !as& under the la! thenprevailing& paid by the anufacturer& and the liability for said taxnaturally fell in the present case upon the plaintiff. y Act +o.5B-5& enacted #eceber 5-& /,/B& the (hilippine egislatureincreased the specific tax on cigarettes fro (/ to (/.5< per

thousand cigarettes.

In /,/& Act +o. 5BB !as passed !hich further clarified thatthe tax iposed by Act 5B-5 should be burdened on thepurchaser )retailers li"e +ubla2. Insular !as ho!ever una!areof Act 5BB so he continued paying the taxes for boxes hedelivered to *achuca. Eventually he found out hes notsupposed to be the one paying for said tax and so in order toget bac" !hat he paid for taxes he increased the price for subse@uent deliveries to (/15.<< per box.

In Septeber /,/0& +ubla defaulted fro paying. %e !as suedby Insular and *achuca !as ipleaded. The trial court ruledthat +ubla and his guarantor are >ointly and severally liable 8T*achuca shall be liable only to the extent of the original rate of

(/5.<< per box this is because as a guarantor& his liability isliited to only !hat he agreed to guarantee.

*achuca no! contests his liability as he argues that supposing Act +o. 5BB to be valid& it increases fro (/5 to (/15 per boxthe price !hich *anuel +ubla !as obligated to pay for thecigarettes& !hich alteration in the contract has the effect of releasing the surety. =hether or not the said tax la!s ipairedthe contract of guaranty bet!een Insular and *achuca.

7uling:

+o. +early all changes in taxation affect existing contracts insoe !ay or another& but this does not necessarily change suchcontracts in a legal sense. The tax increase !as provided by the(hilippine egislature !hich is not privy to the contract of

guaranty bet!een Insular and *achuca. The governent is astranger to the contract of guaranty. The conse@uence is that&properly spea"ing& the legislative fiat& placing the burden of thetax on the purchaser& did not in any !ise affect the obligation of the contract as bet!een the parties. It !as erely an externalfactor !hich& supervening upon the situation created by thecontract& ade it ipossible for the purchaser to reali?e thebenefit !hich !ould have accrued to hi if the seller had beenre@uired to pay the tax. %ence& *achuca is still liable but only atthe original rate of (/5.<< per box.

Authorities fro nuerous sources are cited by the plaintiffs&

but none of the sho! that a la!ful tax on a ne! sub>ect& or an



increased tax on an old one& interferes !ith a contract or ipairs

its obligation& !ithin the eaning of the Constitution& even

though such taxation ay affect particular contracts.

RE:NAL2O R 6A:OT vs. THE SAN2I!AN6A:AN

Facts: (etitioner herein& 7eynaldo 7. ayot& together !ith his

co3accused oren?o 9a. Cesar& !as one of those charged andconvicted in a >oint decision by the Sandiganbayan& of the crieof estafa thru falsification of public docuents. oth !eresentenced to a total of years iprisonent by theSandiganbayan.

7eynaldo 7. ayot and oren?o 9a. Cesar& !ere aong the /-officials and eployees of the *inistry of Education and Culture!ho& in -5 separate Inforations !ere charged !ith the crie of estafa thru falsification of public docuents. Accused A*A#$FE7+A+#EZ and D$SE(%I+E ESTA+ISA$ !ho !ere theones principally blaed for the said cries anaged to fleeabroad and !ere not arraigned. did then and there wilfully&unlawfully and feloniously case the !re!aration and falsificationof the following chec%s by ma%ing it a!!ear that all the

foregoing chec%s were duly funded and covered by cashdisbursement ceilings of the +inistry of ,ducation and Culture-that said chec%s were !ayable to su!!liers in !ayment of

!reviously delivered construction su!!lies and material. . .

=ith respect to 7eynaldo ayot& it !as stated by the trial courtthat he& !ith oren?o 9a. Cesar signed the vouchers andchec"s and in this belief convicted both. (etitioner 7eynaldo 7.ayot assails the conclusion arrived at by the trial court anddeplores his conviction by the Sandiganbayan based only on itsun!arranted conclusion that the signatures on the vouchers andchec"s !ere ade by hi !hen there exist contrary and orecredible evidence establishing said signatures to be forgeries.

7uling:

)e are constrained to reverse the res!ondent courts finding and to rule that this %ind of evidence is too inconclusive and

con/ectural to form a basis for a !rison sentence of 0 years.

There is no basis for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt

that the !etitioner really signed the vouchers. The docuents

are issing and the !itnesses are relying on pure eory of

!hat they sa! around three years earlier. It is incoprehensible

ho! ayot& !ho !as out of the service since /,& !ould have

been in possession of the sub>ect chec"s in /,. +o!here in

the case records is it even suggested that petitioner herein had

profited at an fro the alversed funds. Except for his alleged

signatures on the chec"s !hich sufficient evidence indicate to

be forgeries& there is nothing in the records that herein petitioner conspired !ith any of those accused before& during& or after

coission of the crie charged.

"EO"LE vs SAN2I!AN6A:AN &nd CE$ERINO S "ARE2ES

Facts: T!o letter3coplaints !ere filed on $ctober 51& /,10 and

#eceber ,& /,10& !ith the Tanodbayan by Teofilo 9elacio& a

political leader of 9overnor Galentina (la?a& !ife of

Congressan #eocrito $. (la?a of Agusan del Sur& shortly

after the private respondent had replaced *rs. (la?a as

$ICHprovincial governor of Agusan del Sur in *arch /,10.

9elacio6s coplaint @uestioned the issuance to 9overnor

(aredes& !hen he !as still the provincial attorney in /,0& of afree patent title for the 7osario public land subdivision in San

Francisco& Agusan del Sur.

. . . being then the (rovincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur&

having been duly appointed and @ualified as such& ta"ing

advantage of his public position& did& then and there&

!ilfully and unla!fully persuade& influence and induce the

and Inspector of the ureau of ands& by the nae of

Arando . uison to violate an existing rule or regulation

duly proulgated by copetent authority by

isrepresenting to the latter that the land sub>ect. . .

(aredes filed in the Sandiganbayan 'An 8rgent *otion to

uash Inforation and to 7ecall =arrant of Arrest' alleging that:

/2 he is charged for an offense !hich has prescribe4 52 invalid

for lac" of notice to hi of the preliinary investigation4 -2 his

constitutional right to due process !as infringed.

7uling: atas (abansa lg. /, !hich !as approved on

*arch /0& /,15& aending Section // 7.A. +o. -</, by

increasing fro ten )/<2 to fifteen )/2 years the period for the

prescription or extinguishent of a violation of the

Anti39raft and Corrupt (ractices Act& ay not be givenretroactive application to the 'crie' !hich !as coitted by

(aredes in Danuary /,0 yet& for it should be pre>udicial to the

accused. It !ould deprive hi of the substantive benefit of the

shorter )/< years2 prescriptive period under Section //& 7.A.

-</,& !hich !as an essential eleent of the 'crie' at the tie

he coitted it.

To apply .(. lg. /, to (aredes !ould a"e it an e !ost

facto la! for it !ould after his situation to his disadvantage by

a"ing hi criinally liable for a crie that had already been

extinguished under the la! existing !hen it !as coitted.

An e !ost facto la! is defined as:

3 law !assed after the occurrence of a fact or commission

of an act& which retros!ectively changes the legal

conse#uences or relations of such fact or deed .

Since an e !ost facto la! is proscribed by our Constitution

)Sec. 55& Article ///& /,1 Constitution2& the Sandiganbayan

coitted no reversible error in ruling that (aredes ay no

longer be prosecuted for his supposed violation of 7.A. -</, in

/,0& six )02 years before .(. lg. /, !as approved on *arch

/0& /,15. The ne! prescriptive period under that la! should

apply only to those offense !hich !ere coitted after the

approval of .(. /,. )crime is governed by "ec. 24 of 3ct No.

5526& which begins to run from the day of the commission of thecrime and not the discovery of it .2

"EO"LE vs.HON SIEON $ERRER (C$I of T&rl&c)#

$ELICIANO CO &li&s LEONCIO CO &li&s 86ob#8 &nd NILO S

TA:A! &li&s Ro1y Reyes &li&s 8T&b&#8

Facts: $n *arch & /,< a criinal coplaint for violation of

section B of the Anti3Subversion Act !as filed against Feliciano

Co in the CFI of Tarlac. $n *arch /< Dudge Dose C. de 9u?an

conducted a preliinary investigation and& finding a !rima

facie case against Co& directed the 9overnent prosecutors to

file the corresponding inforation: accused& feloniously becae

an officer andHor ran"ing leader of the Counist (arty of the

(hilippines& an outla!ed and illegal organi?ation aied to

overthro! the 9overnent of the (hilippines by eans of force&

violence& deceit& subversion& or any other illegal eans for the

purpose of establishing in the (hilippines a totalitarian regie.

)Aggrav: insult& band& aid or ared2 JAATAA+9 *AJAAKA+

7uling: =$+ said Act is a ill of AttainderL Article III& section /

)//2 of the Constitution states that '+o bill of attainder or e !ort

facto la! shall be enacted.' A bill of attainder is a legislative act

!hich inflicts punishent !ithout trial. In the case at bar& the

Anti3Subversion Act !as condened by the court a #uo as a bill

of attainder because it 'tars and feathers' the Counist (arty

of the (hilippines as a 'continuing enace to the freedo and

security of the country4 its existence& a 6clear& present and gravedanger to the security of the (hilippines.6' y eans of the Act&

the trial court said& Congress usurped 'the po!ers of the >udge&'

and assued '>udicial agistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the

CC( !ithout any of the fors or safeguards of >udicial trial.'

Indeed& !ere the Anti3Subversion Act a bill of attainder& it !ould

be totally unnecessary to charge Counists in court& as the

la! alone& !ithout ore& !ould suffice to secure their

punishent. ut the undeniable fact is that their guilt still has to

be >udicially established. The 9overnent has yet to prove at

the trial that the accused >oined the (arty "no!ingly& !illfully and



by overt acts& and that they >oined the (arty& "no!ing its

subversive character and !ith specific intent to further its basic

ob>ective. The statute specifically re@uired that ebership

ust be %nowing

or active& !ith specific intent to further the

illegal ob>ectives of the (arty.

non-impair part 2 & expost facto part2

Documents