Lawyerly

GR No. 195687

2014-04-14

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DAVID G. NAVAL

VELASCO JR., J.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, a point of law already established will be followed by the court in subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised.[53] Thus, we can come to no other conclusion than to deny the payment of the COLA on top of the LBP employees' basic salary from July 1, 1989 because (1) it has not been expressly excluded from the general rule on integration by the first sentence of Sec. 12 of the SSL and (2) as we have explained in Gutierrez, the COLA is not granted in order to reimburse employees for the expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties.

GR No. 195687

2014-04-14

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DAVID G. NAVAL

VELASCO JR., J.

In PNB v. Palma,[60] this Court once again reiterated the established rule that "[u]nder Section 12 of RA 6758 (the SSL), additional compensation already being received by the employees of petitioner, but not integrated in the standardized salary rates enumerated in Section 5.5 of DBM-CC No. 10, like 'rice subsidy, sugar subsidy, death benefits, other those granted by the GSIS,' and so on shall continue to be given."[61] Since, COLA and the similar allowance of BEP had been considered integrated into the basic salary of the employees under Sec. 12, and had in fact been integrated into the basic salary of LBP employees, there is nothing to justify a redundant back payment of these allowances.

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.[39] Courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.[40]

GR No. 165548

2011-06-13

PHILIPPINE REALTY v. LEY CONSTRUCTION

SERENO, J.

Estoppel is an equitable principle rooted in natural justice; it is meant to prevent persons from going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them. [47] Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides: Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

GR No. 183626

2010-10-04

SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

NACHURA, J.

Likewise, SURNECO cannot validly assert that the caps set by R.A. No. 7832 are arbitrary, or that they violate the non-impairment clause of the Constitution for allegedly traversing the loan agreement between NEA and ADB. Striking down a legislative enactment, or any of its provisions, can be done only by way of a direct action, not through a collateral attack, and more so, not for the first time on appeal in order to avoid compliance. The challenge to the law's constitutionality should also be raised at the earliest opportunity.[21]

GR No. 153266

2010-03-18

VICTORIA C. GUTIERREZ v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET

ABAD, J.

Nothing is more settled than that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be attacked collaterally because constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally.[31]

GR No. 174044

2009-11-27

GLORIA V. GOMEZ v. PNOC DEVELOPMENT

ABAD, J.

Estoppel, an equitable principle rooted on natural justice, prevents a person from rejecting his previous acts and representations to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.[38] This principle of law applies to corporations as well. The PDMC in this case is estopped from claiming that despite all the appearances of regular employment that it weaved around petitioner Gomez's position it must have technically hired her only as a corporate officer. The board and its officers made her stay on and work with the company for years under the belief that she held a regular managerial position.

GR No. 183196

2009-08-19

CHONA ESTACIO v. PAMPANGA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Estoppel, an equitable principle rooted upon natural justice, prevents persons from going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.[40]

GR Nos. 175769-70

2009-01-19

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The records show that petitioner assailed the constitutionality of Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88 by way of a collateral attack before the Court of Appeals. In Philippine National Bank v. Palma,[57] we ruled that for reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be collaterally attacked. A law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a competent court; more so when the issue has not been duly pleaded in the trial court.[58]

GR No. 175550

2008-09-17

DASMARIÑAS WATER DISTRICT v. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

CORONA, J.

[35] Philippine National Bank v. Palma, G.R. No. 157279, 9 August 2005, 466 SCRA 307, 323, citations omitted.

GR No. 163583

2008-08-20

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Estoppel, an equitable principle rooted in natural justice, prevents persons from going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.[29] The principle is codified in Article 1431 of the Civil Code, which provides:Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

GR No. 178759

2008-08-11

CHEVRON PHILIPPINES v. COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

CORONA, J.

[a] law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a competent court; more so when the issue has not been duly pleaded in the trial court. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. xxx The settled rule is that courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.[52] Be that as it may, the intent of Congress was unequivocal. Our policy makers wanted to do away with lengthy proceedings before an importation can be considered abandoned: xxx xxx xxx MR. PARAYNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed amendment to Section 1801 on the abandonment, kinds and effects. This aimed to facilitate, Mr. Chairman, the process by which this activity is being acted upon at the moment. The intention, Mr. Chairman, is for the Customs Administration to be able to maximize the revenue that can be derived from abandoned goods, and the problem that we are encountering at the moment is that we have to go through a lengthy process similar to a seizure proceedings to be able to finally declare the cargo, the abandoned cargo forfeited in favor of the government and therefore, may be disposed of pursuant to law. And that therefore, the proposed amendment particularly on the implied abandonment as framed here will do away with the lengthy process of seizure proceedings and therefore, enable us to dispose of the shipments through public auction and other modes of disposal as early as possible.

GR NO. 165142

2007-12-10

EDUARDO L. RAYO v. METROPOLITAN BANK

QUISUMBING, J.

The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner's attempt to challenge the constitutionality of Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, constitutes a collateral attack that is not allowed. We fully agree with the appellate court's ruling. For reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be attacked collaterally.[28]

GR NO. 174153

2006-10-25

RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed[14] the concept of peopleï¿½s initiative from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate an initiative clause. In almost all States[15] which allow initiative petitions, the unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.[16]

GR NO. 160396

2005-09-06

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER JULY 1 v. COA

PANGANIBAN, ACTING CJ

The present case should be distinguished from PNB v. Palma,[12] in which the respondents sought by mandamus to compel the petitioner therein to grant them certain fringe benefits and allowances that continued to be given to Philippine National Bank (PNB) employees hired prior to July 1, 1989. This Court held that PNB could not be compelled to do so, because the respondents had been hired after that date. Under Section 12 of RA 6758, only "incumbent" government employees (as of July 1, 1989) already receiving those benefits may continue to receive them, apart from their standardized pay.

	GR No. 195687 2014-04-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DAVID G. NAVAL VELASCO JR., J.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, a point of law already established will be followed by the court in subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised.[53] Thus, we can come to no other conclusion than to deny the payment of the COLA on top of the LBP employees' basic salary from July 1, 1989 because (1) it has not been expressly excluded from the general rule on integration by the first sentence of Sec. 12 of the SSL and (2) as we have explained in Gutierrez, the COLA is not granted in order to reimburse employees for the expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties.
	GR No. 195687 2014-04-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DAVID G. NAVAL VELASCO JR., J.
In PNB v. Palma,[60] this Court once again reiterated the established rule that "[u]nder Section 12 of RA 6758 (the SSL), additional compensation already being received by the employees of petitioner, but not integrated in the standardized salary rates enumerated in Section 5.5 of DBM-CC No. 10, like 'rice subsidy, sugar subsidy, death benefits, other those granted by the GSIS,' and so on shall continue to be given."[61] Since, COLA and the similar allowance of BEP had been considered integrated into the basic salary of the employees under Sec. 12, and had in fact been integrated into the basic salary of LBP employees, there is nothing to justify a redundant back payment of these allowances.
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.[39] Courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.[40]
	GR No. 165548 2011-06-13	PHILIPPINE REALTY v. LEY CONSTRUCTION SERENO, J.
Estoppel is an equitable principle rooted in natural justice; it is meant to prevent persons from going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them. [47] Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides: Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
	GR No. 183626 2010-10-04	SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
Likewise, SURNECO cannot validly assert that the caps set by R.A. No. 7832 are arbitrary, or that they violate the non-impairment clause of the Constitution for allegedly traversing the loan agreement between NEA and ADB. Striking down a legislative enactment, or any of its provisions, can be done only by way of a direct action, not through a collateral attack, and more so, not for the first time on appeal in order to avoid compliance. The challenge to the law's constitutionality should also be raised at the earliest opportunity.[21]
	GR No. 153266 2010-03-18	VICTORIA C. GUTIERREZ v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET ABAD, J.
Nothing is more settled than that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be attacked collaterally because constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally.[31]
	GR No. 174044 2009-11-27	GLORIA V. GOMEZ v. PNOC DEVELOPMENT ABAD, J.
Estoppel, an equitable principle rooted on natural justice, prevents a person from rejecting his previous acts and representations to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.[38] This principle of law applies to corporations as well. The PDMC in this case is estopped from claiming that despite all the appearances of regular employment that it weaved around petitioner Gomez's position it must have technically hired her only as a corporate officer. The board and its officers made her stay on and work with the company for years under the belief that she held a regular managerial position.
	GR No. 183196 2009-08-19	CHONA ESTACIO v. PAMPANGA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Estoppel, an equitable principle rooted upon natural justice, prevents persons from going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.[40]
	GR Nos. 175769-70 2009-01-19	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The records show that petitioner assailed the constitutionality of Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88 by way of a collateral attack before the Court of Appeals. In Philippine National Bank v. Palma,[57] we ruled that for reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be collaterally attacked. A law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a competent court; more so when the issue has not been duly pleaded in the trial court.[58]
	GR No. 175550 2008-09-17	DASMARIÑAS WATER DISTRICT v. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO CORONA, J.
[35] Philippine National Bank v. Palma, G.R. No. 157279, 9 August 2005, 466 SCRA 307, 323, citations omitted.
	GR No. 163583 2008-08-20	BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Estoppel, an equitable principle rooted in natural justice, prevents persons from going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.[29] The principle is codified in Article 1431 of the Civil Code, which provides:Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
	GR No. 178759 2008-08-11	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES v. COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS CORONA, J.
[a] law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a competent court; more so when the issue has not been duly pleaded in the trial court. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. xxx The settled rule is that courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.[52] Be that as it may, the intent of Congress was unequivocal. Our policy makers wanted to do away with lengthy proceedings before an importation can be considered abandoned: xxx xxx xxx MR. PARAYNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed amendment to Section 1801 on the abandonment, kinds and effects. This aimed to facilitate, Mr. Chairman, the process by which this activity is being acted upon at the moment. The intention, Mr. Chairman, is for the Customs Administration to be able to maximize the revenue that can be derived from abandoned goods, and the problem that we are encountering at the moment is that we have to go through a lengthy process similar to a seizure proceedings to be able to finally declare the cargo, the abandoned cargo forfeited in favor of the government and therefore, may be disposed of pursuant to law. And that therefore, the proposed amendment particularly on the implied abandonment as framed here will do away with the lengthy process of seizure proceedings and therefore, enable us to dispose of the shipments through public auction and other modes of disposal as early as possible.
	GR NO. 165142 2007-12-10	EDUARDO L. RAYO v. METROPOLITAN BANK QUISUMBING, J.
The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner's attempt to challenge the constitutionality of Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, constitutes a collateral attack that is not allowed. We fully agree with the appellate court's ruling. For reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be attacked collaterally.[28]
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed[14] the concept of peopleï¿½s initiative from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate an initiative clause. In almost all States[15] which allow initiative petitions, the unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.[16]
	GR NO. 160396 2005-09-06	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER JULY 1 v. COA PANGANIBAN, ACTING CJ
The present case should be distinguished from PNB v. Palma,[12] in which the respondents sought by mandamus to compel the petitioner therein to grant them certain fringe benefits and allowances that continued to be given to Philippine National Bank (PNB) employees hired prior to July 1, 1989. This Court held that PNB could not be compelled to do so, because the respondents had been hired after that date. Under Section 12 of RA 6758, only "incumbent" government employees (as of July 1, 1989) already receiving those benefits may continue to receive them, apart from their standardized pay.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GIOVANNI PALMA ET AL.