Lawyerly

GR No. 205728

2015-01-21

LEONEN, J.

Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy."[82] In the past, questions similar to these which this court ruled on immediately despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens' right to bear arms,[83] government contracts involving modernization of voters' registration lists,[84] and the status and existence of a public office.[85]

GR No. 185812

2015-01-13

MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY v. COA

LEONEN, J.

The law delegated to the executive branch the filling in of other allowances and benefits that should be excluded from the standardized salary. It specifically identifies the Department of Budget and Management to carry out the task. However, this does not exclude the President from identifying the excluded allowances or benefits himself, the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management being an alter ego of the President. Of course, the performance of this task must still be in accordance with the parameters laid down in Republic Act No. 6758.[102] As this court held in Chavez v. Romulo:[103]

GR Nos. 197942-43

2014-03-26

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS

REYES, J.

It is needless to state that a license[70] from PAGCOR to operate a casino is not absolute and unconditional as to constitute a right in esse which the licensee may enforce through a writ of injunction as a matter of law,[71] or treat as a property or a property right.[72] Truly, the licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the grantor sees fit to impose, including its revocation at pleasure.[73] But the instant petitions do not deal merely with the matter of renewal or extension of the respondents' casino franchises. The parties' MOAs, and the amendments thereto, disclose without a doubt that the respondents' multi-billion investment commitment in their resort complexes is integrally conditioned upon the government's promise of a concomitant casino franchise, provided they comply with their investment timetables, among other things, a matter which is precisely the subject of PAGCOR's licensing and regulatory functions.

GR No. 190569

2012-04-25

P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO

SERENO, J.

By virtue of R.A. 6975,[43] the PNP absorbed the Philippine Constabulary. Consequently, the PNP Chief succeeded the Chief of the Constabulary and, therefore, assumed the latter's licensing authority.[44]

GR No. 190569

2012-04-25

P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO

SERENO, J.

Thereafter, they spotted two persons walking towards them, wobbling and visibly drunk. They further noticed that one of them, Aguillon, was openly carrying a rifle, and that its barrel touched the concrete road at times.[8] Petitioner and Hermoso disarmed Aguillon. The rifle was a Caliber 5.56 M16 rifle with Serial Number 101365 and with 20 live ammunitions in its magazine.

GR No. 183409

2010-06-18

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM

PEREZ, J.

Exceptional and compelling circumstances were held present in the following cases: (a) Chavez v. Romulo,[21] on citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of [the] United States of America v. Hon. Purganan,[22] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections v. Judge Quijano-Padilla,[23] on government contract involving modernization and computerization of voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Hon. Sec. Zamora,[24] on status and existence of a public office; and (e) Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona,[25] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area.[26]

GR No. 145184

2008-03-14

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

NACHURA, J.

An ex post facto law has been defined as one -- (a) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; or (c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; or (d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant;[12] or (e) which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when exercised was lawful; or (f) which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[13]

GR No. 135080

2007-11-28

ORLANDO L. SALVADOR v. PLACIDO L. MAPA

NACHURA, J.

An ex post facto law has been defined as one (a) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; or (c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; or (d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant.[22] This Court added two (2) more to the list, namely: (e) that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; or (f) that which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[23]

GR No. 168584

2007-10-15

REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

These certificates granting private respondents a "permit to operate" their respective businesses are in the nature of licenses, which the bulk of jurisprudence considers as neither a property nor a property right.[40] The licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the grantor sees fit to impose, including its revocation at pleasure.[41] A license can thus be revoked at any time since it does not confer an absolute right.[42]

GR No. 164527

2007-08-15

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

VELASCO, JR., J.

In Chavez v. Romulo, we stated that when a statute imposes a specific duty on the executive department, the President may act directly or order the said department to undertake an activity, thus: [A]t the apex of the entire executive officialdom is the President. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution specifies [her] power as Chief executive departments, bureaus and offices. [She] shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. As Chief Executive, President Arroyo holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her government. She lays down policies in the execution of her plans and programs. Whatever policy she chooses, she has her subordinates to implement them. In short, she has the power of control. Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate, she may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty x x x. Such act is well within the prerogative of her office (emphasis supplied).[72] Moreover, the power to order the reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed first in the Philippine President. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 grants authority to the President to reserve lands of public domain for settlement for any specific purpose, thus: Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government.--(1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. (Emphasis supplied.) President Aquino reserved the area of the Smokey Mountain dumpsite for settlement and issued MO 415 authorizing the implementation of the Smokey Mountain Development Project plus the reclamation of the area across R-10. Then President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 39 covering the 21-hectare dumpsite and the 40-hectare commercial/industrial area, and Proclamation No. 465 and MO 415 increasing the area of foreshore and submerged lands of Manila Bay to be reclaimed from 40 to 79 hectares. Having supervision and control over the DENR, both Presidents directly assumed and exercised the power granted by the Revised Administrative Code to the DENR Secretary to authorize the NHA to reclaim said lands. What can be done indirectly by the DENR can be done directly by the President. It would be absurd if the power of the President cannot be exercised simply because the head of a department in the executive branch has not acted favorably on a project already approved by the President. If such arrangement is allowed then the department head will become more powerful than the President.

GR No. 170656

2007-08-15

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO.

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Thus, whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate, the President may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty.[34]

GR NO. 143951

2005-10-25

NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Thus, this Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.[14] Such exceptional and compelling circumstances were present in the following cases: (a) Chavez vs. Romulo[15] on the citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan[16] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections vs. Quijano-Padilla[17] on a government contract on the modernization and computerization of the voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora[18] on the status and existence of a public office; and (e) Fortich vs. Corona[19] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area of a 144-hectare land.

GR NO. 140954

2005-04-12

HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Thus, this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Exceptional and compelling circumstances were held present in the following cases: (a) Chavez vs. Romulo[33] on citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan[34] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections vs. Quijano-Padilla[35] on government contract involving modernization and computerization of voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora[36] on status and existence of a public office; and (e) Fortich vs. Corona[37] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area.

	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy."[82] In the past, questions similar to these which this court ruled on immediately despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens' right to bear arms,[83] government contracts involving modernization of voters' registration lists,[84] and the status and existence of a public office.[85]
	GR No. 185812 2015-01-13	MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY v. COA LEONEN, J.
The law delegated to the executive branch the filling in of other allowances and benefits that should be excluded from the standardized salary. It specifically identifies the Department of Budget and Management to carry out the task. However, this does not exclude the President from identifying the excluded allowances or benefits himself, the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management being an alter ego of the President. Of course, the performance of this task must still be in accordance with the parameters laid down in Republic Act No. 6758.[102] As this court held in Chavez v. Romulo:[103]
	GR Nos. 197942-43 2014-03-26	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS REYES, J.
It is needless to state that a license[70] from PAGCOR to operate a casino is not absolute and unconditional as to constitute a right in esse which the licensee may enforce through a writ of injunction as a matter of law,[71] or treat as a property or a property right.[72] Truly, the licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the grantor sees fit to impose, including its revocation at pleasure.[73] But the instant petitions do not deal merely with the matter of renewal or extension of the respondents' casino franchises. The parties' MOAs, and the amendments thereto, disclose without a doubt that the respondents' multi-billion investment commitment in their resort complexes is integrally conditioned upon the government's promise of a concomitant casino franchise, provided they comply with their investment timetables, among other things, a matter which is precisely the subject of PAGCOR's licensing and regulatory functions.
	GR No. 190569 2012-04-25	P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, J.
By virtue of R.A. 6975,[43] the PNP absorbed the Philippine Constabulary. Consequently, the PNP Chief succeeded the Chief of the Constabulary and, therefore, assumed the latter's licensing authority.[44]
	GR No. 190569 2012-04-25	P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, J.
Thereafter, they spotted two persons walking towards them, wobbling and visibly drunk. They further noticed that one of them, Aguillon, was openly carrying a rifle, and that its barrel touched the concrete road at times.[8] Petitioner and Hermoso disarmed Aguillon. The rifle was a Caliber 5.56 M16 rifle with Serial Number 101365 and with 20 live ammunitions in its magazine.
	GR No. 183409 2010-06-18	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM PEREZ, J.
Exceptional and compelling circumstances were held present in the following cases: (a) Chavez v. Romulo,[21] on citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of [the] United States of America v. Hon. Purganan,[22] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections v. Judge Quijano-Padilla,[23] on government contract involving modernization and computerization of voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Hon. Sec. Zamora,[24] on status and existence of a public office; and (e) Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona,[25] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area.[26]
	GR No. 145184 2008-03-14	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO NACHURA, J.
An ex post facto law has been defined as one -- (a) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; or (c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; or (d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant;[12] or (e) which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when exercised was lawful; or (f) which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[13]
	GR No. 135080 2007-11-28	ORLANDO L. SALVADOR v. PLACIDO L. MAPA NACHURA, J.
An ex post facto law has been defined as one (a) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; or (c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; or (d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant.[22] This Court added two (2) more to the list, namely: (e) that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; or (f) that which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[23]
	GR No. 168584 2007-10-15	REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA CARPIO MORALES, J.
These certificates granting private respondents a "permit to operate" their respective businesses are in the nature of licenses, which the bulk of jurisprudence considers as neither a property nor a property right.[40] The licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the grantor sees fit to impose, including its revocation at pleasure.[41] A license can thus be revoked at any time since it does not confer an absolute right.[42]
	GR No. 164527 2007-08-15	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY VELASCO, JR., J.
In Chavez v. Romulo, we stated that when a statute imposes a specific duty on the executive department, the President may act directly or order the said department to undertake an activity, thus: [A]t the apex of the entire executive officialdom is the President. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution specifies [her] power as Chief executive departments, bureaus and offices. [She] shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. As Chief Executive, President Arroyo holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her government. She lays down policies in the execution of her plans and programs. Whatever policy she chooses, she has her subordinates to implement them. In short, she has the power of control. Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate, she may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty x x x. Such act is well within the prerogative of her office (emphasis supplied).[72] Moreover, the power to order the reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed first in the Philippine President. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 grants authority to the President to reserve lands of public domain for settlement for any specific purpose, thus: Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government.--(1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. (Emphasis supplied.) President Aquino reserved the area of the Smokey Mountain dumpsite for settlement and issued MO 415 authorizing the implementation of the Smokey Mountain Development Project plus the reclamation of the area across R-10. Then President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 39 covering the 21-hectare dumpsite and the 40-hectare commercial/industrial area, and Proclamation No. 465 and MO 415 increasing the area of foreshore and submerged lands of Manila Bay to be reclaimed from 40 to 79 hectares. Having supervision and control over the DENR, both Presidents directly assumed and exercised the power granted by the Revised Administrative Code to the DENR Secretary to authorize the NHA to reclaim said lands. What can be done indirectly by the DENR can be done directly by the President. It would be absurd if the power of the President cannot be exercised simply because the head of a department in the executive branch has not acted favorably on a project already approved by the President. If such arrangement is allowed then the department head will become more powerful than the President.
	GR No. 170656 2007-08-15	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO. CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus, whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate, the President may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty.[34]
	GR NO. 143951 2005-10-25	NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, this Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.[14] Such exceptional and compelling circumstances were present in the following cases: (a) Chavez vs. Romulo[15] on the citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan[16] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections vs. Quijano-Padilla[17] on a government contract on the modernization and computerization of the voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora[18] on the status and existence of a public office; and (e) Fortich vs. Corona[19] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area of a 144-hectare land.
	GR NO. 140954 2005-04-12	HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Exceptional and compelling circumstances were held present in the following cases: (a) Chavez vs. Romulo[33] on citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan[34] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections vs. Quijano-Padilla[35] on government contract involving modernization and computerization of voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora[36] on status and existence of a public office; and (e) Fortich vs. Corona[37] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area.

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. ALBERTO G. ROMULO