consti law ii - first assignment

7/24/2019 Consti Law II - First Assignment

1/145

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-11390 March 26, 1918

EL BANCO ESPAOL-FILIPINO,plaintiff-appellant,vs.

ICEN!E PALANCA, a"#$%$&'ra'or o( 'h) )&'a') o( E%*rac$o Pa+a%ca!a%$%)%*,defendant-appellant.

S!REE!, J./

This action was instituted upon March 31, 19!, "# $El Banco Espanol-%ilipino$ to

foreclose a &ort'a'e upon various parcels of real propert# situated in the cit# of Manila.

The &ort'a'e in (uestion is dated )une 1*, 19*, and was e+ecuted "# the ori'inal

defendant herein, En'racio alanca Tan(uin#en' # i&(uin'co, as securit# for a de"t

owin' "# hi& to the "an. /pon March 31, 19*, the de"t a&ounted to 01!,09.1

and was drawin' interest at the rate of ! per centu& per annu&, pa#a"le at the end of

each (uarter. 2t appears that the parties to this &ort'a'e at that ti&e esti&ated the

value of the propert# in (uestion at 090,!, which was a"out 4, in e+cess of

the inde"tedness. After the e+ecution of this instru&ent "# the &ort'a'or, he returned to

China which appears to have "een his native countr#5 and he there died, upon )anuar#

09, 1!1, without a'ain returnin' to the hilippine 2slands.

As the defendant was a nonresident at the ti&e of the institution of the present action, it

was necessar# for the plaintiff in the foreclosure proceedin' to 'ive notice to the

defendant "# pu"lication pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Civil rocedure. An

order for pu"lication was accordin'l# o"tained fro& the court, and pu"lication was &ade

in due for& in a newspaper of the cit# of Manila. At the sa&e ti&e that the order of the

court should deposit in the post office in a sta&ped envelope a cop# of the su&&ons

and co&plaint directed to the defendant at his last place of residence, to wit, the cit# of

A&o#, in the E&pire of China. This order was &ade pursuant to the followin' provision

contained in section 399 of the Code of Civil rocedure6

2n case of pu"lication, where the residence of a nonresident or a"sent defendant is

nown, the 7ud'e &ust direct a cop# of the su&&ons and co&plaint to "e forthwith

deposited "# the cler in the post-office, posta'e prepaid, directed to the person to "e

served, at his place of residence

8hether the cler co&plied with this order does not affir&ativel# appear. There is,

however, a&on' the papers pertainin' to this case, an affidavit, dated April , 19!,

si'ned "# Bernardo Chan # arcia, an e&plo#ee of the attorne#s of the "an, showin'

that upon that date he had deposited in the Manila post-office a re'istered letter,

addressed to En'racio alanca Tan(uin#en', at Manila, containin' copies of the

co&plaint, the plaintiff:s affidavit, the su&&ons, and the order of the court directin'

pu"lication as aforesaid. 2t appears fro& the post&aster:s receipt that Bernardo

pro"a"l# used an envelope o"tained fro& the cler:s office, as the receipt purports to

show that the letter e&anated fro& the office.

The cause proceeded in usual course in the Court of %irst 2nstance5 and the defendant

not havin' appeared, 7ud'&ent was, upon )ul# 0, 19!, taen a'ainst hi& "# default.

/pon )ul# 3, 19!, a decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. 2n this decision it

was recited that pu"lication had "een properl# &ade in a periodical, "ut nothin' was

said a"out this notice havin' "een 'iven &ail. The court, upon this occasion, found that

the inde"tedness of the defendant a&ounted to 09,3. 30, with interest fro& March

31, 19!. Accordin'l# it was ordered that the defendant should, on or "efore )ul# *,

19!, deliver said a&ount to the cler of the court to "e applied to the satisfaction of the

7ud'&ent, and it was declared that in case of the failure of the defendant to satisf# the7ud'&ent within such period, the &ort'a'e propert# located in the cit# of Manila should

"e e+posed to pu"lic sale. The pa#&ent conte&plated in said order was never &ade5

and upon )ul# !, 19!, the court ordered the sale of the propert#. The sale too place

upon )ul# 3, 19!, and the propert# was "ou'ht in "# the "an for the su& of

11,0. /pon Au'ust 4, 19!, this sale was confir&ed "# the court.

A"out seven #ears after the confir&ation of this sale, or to the precise, upon )une 0,

191, a &otion was &ade in this cause "# ;icente alanca, as ad&inistrator of the

estate of the ori'inal defendant, En'racio alanca Tan(uin#en' # i&(uin'co, wherein

the applicant re(uested the court to set aside the order of default of )ul# 0, 19!, and

the 7ud'&ent rendered upon )ul# 3, 19!, and to vacate all the proceedin's su"se(uent

thereto. The "asis of this application, as set forth in the &otion itself, was that the orderof default and the 7ud'&ent rendered thereon were void "ecause the court had never

ac(uired 7urisdiction over the defendant or over the su"7ect of the action.

At the hearin' in the court "elow the application to vacate the 7ud'&ent was denied,

and fro& this action of the court ;icente lanca, as ad&inistrator of the estate of the

ori'inal defendant, has appealed. No other feature of the case is here under

consideration than such as related to the action of the court upon said &otion.

The case presents several (uestions of i&portance, which will "e discussed in what

appears to "e the se(uence of &ost convenient develop&ent. 2n the first part of this

opinion we shall, for the purpose of ar'u&ent, assu&e that the cler of the Court of %irst

2nstance did not o"e# the order of the court in the &atter of &ailin' the papers which he

was directed to send to the defendant in A&o#5 and in this connection we shall consider,first, whether the court ac(uired the necessar# 7urisdiction to ena"le it to proceed with

the foreclosure of the &ort'a'e and, secondl#, whether those proceedin's were

conducted in such &anner as to constitute due process of law.

The word $7urisdiction,$ as applied to the facult# of e+ercisin' 7udicial power, is used in

several different, thou'h related, senses since it &a# have reference


2/145

)urisdiction over the person is ac(uired "# the voluntar# appearance of a part# in court

and his su"&ission to its authorit#, or it is ac(uired "# the coercive power of le'al

process e+erted over the person.

)urisdiction over the propert# which is the su"7ect of the liti'ation &a# result either fro&

a sei>ure of the propert# under le'al process, where"# it is "rou'ht into the actual

custod# of the law, or it &a# result fro& the institution of le'al proceedin's wherein,

under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the propert# is reco'ni>ed

and &ade effective. 2n the latter case the propert#, thou'h at all ti&es within the

potential power of the court, &a# never "e taen into actual custod# at all. An illustration

of the 7urisdiction ac(uired "# actual sei>ure is found in attach&ent proceedin's, where

the propert# is sei>ed at the "e'innin' of the action, or so&e su"se(uent sta'e of its

pro'ress, and held to a"ide the final event of the liti'ation. An illustration of what we

ter& potential 7urisdiction over the res, is found in the proceedin' to re'ister the title of

land under our s#ste& for the re'istration of land. ?ere the court, without tain' actual

ph#sical control over the propert# assu&es, at the instance of so&e person clai&in' to

"e owner, to e+ercise a 7urisdiction in re& over the propert# and to ad7udicate the title in

favor of the petitioner a'ainst all the world.

2n the ter&inolo'# of A&erican law the action to foreclose a &ort'a'e is said to "e a

proceedin' (uasi in re&, "# which is e+pressed the idea that while it is not strictl#

speain' an action in rem#et it partaes of that nature and is su"stantiall# such. Thee+pression $action in re&$ is, in its narrow application, used onl# with reference to

certain proceedin's in courts of ad&iralt# wherein the propert# alone is treated as

responsi"le for the clai& or o"li'ation upon which the proceedin's are "ased. The

action (uasi re& differs fro& the true action in re& in the circu&stance that in the

for&er an individual is na&ed as defendant, and the purpose of the proceedin' is to

su"7ect his interest therein to the o"li'ation or lien "urdenin' the propert#. All

proceedin's havin' for their sole o"7ect the sale or other disposition of the propert# of

the defendant, whether "# attach&ent, foreclosure, or other for& of re&ed#, are in a

'eneral wa# thus desi'nated. The 7ud'&ent entered in these proceedin's is conclusive

onl# "etween the parties.

2n speain' of the proceedin' to foreclose a &ort'a'e the author of a well nowntreaties, has said6

Thou'h no&inall# a'ainst person, such suits are to vindicate liens5 the# proceed upon

sei>ure5 the# treat propert# as pri&aril# inde"ted5 and, with the (ualification a"ove-

&entioned, the# are su"stantiall# propert# actions. 2n the civil law, the# are st#led

h#pothecar# actions, and their sole o"7ect is the enforce&ent of the lien a'ainst the res5

in the co&&on law, the# would "e different in chancer# did not treat the conditional

conve#ance as a &ere h#pothecation, and the creditor:s ri'ht ass an e(uita"le lien5 so,

in "oth, the suit is real action so far as it is a'ainst propert#, and sees the 7udicial

reco'nition of a propert# de"t, and an order for the sale of the res.ure is to, "e considered necessar# in order to confer 7urisdiction upon

the court. 2n this case the lien on the propert# is ac(uired "# the sei>ure5 and the

purpose of the proceedin's is to su"7ect the propert# to that lien. 2f a lien alread# e+ists,whether created "# &ort'a'e, contract, or statute, the preli&inar# sei>ure is not

necessar#5 and the court proceeds to enforce such lien in the &anner provided "# law

precisel# as thou'h the propert# had "een sei>ed upon attach&ent. in' the court. The 7urisdiction of the court, in

this &ost 'eneral sense, over the cause of action is o"vious and re(uires no co&&ent.

)urisdiction over the person of the defendant, if ac(uired at all in such an action, is

o"tained "# the voluntar# su"&ission of the defendant or "# the personal service of

process upon hi& within the territor# where the process is valid. 2f, however, the

defendant is a nonresident and, re&ainin' "e#ond the ran'e of the personal process of

the court, refuses to co&e in voluntaril#, the court never ac(uires 7urisdiction over the

person at all. ?ere the propert# itself is in fact the sole thin' which is i&pleaded and is

the responsi"le o"7ect which is the su"7ect of the e+ercise of 7udicial power. 2t follows

that the 7urisdiction of the court in such case is "ased e+clusivel# on the power which,

under the law, it possesses over the propert#5 and an# discussion relative to the

7urisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant is entirel# apart f ro& the case.

CONSTILAW 2-SEC. I | 2


3/145

The 7urisdiction of the court over the propert#, considered as the e+clusive o"7ect of

such action, is evidentl# "ased upon the followin' conditions and considerations,

na&el#6


4/145

8e now proceed to a discussion of the (uestion whether the supposed irre'ularit# in

the proceedin's was of such 'ravit# as to a&ount to a denial of that $due process of

law$ which was secured "# the Act of Con'ress in force in these 2slands at the ti&e this

&ort'a'e was foreclosed. ed as essential. To answer this necessit# the statutes 'enerall#

provide for pu"lication, and usuall# in addition thereto, for the &ailin' of notice to thedefendant, if his residence is nown. Thou'h co&&onl# called constructive, or

su"stituted service of process in an# true sense. 2t is &erel# a &eans provided "# law

where"# the owner &a# "e ad&onished that his propert# is the su"7ect of 7udicial

proceedin's and that it is incu&"ent upon hi& to tae such steps as he sees fit to

protect it. 2n speain' of notice of this character a distin'uish &aster of constitutional

law has used the followin' lan'ua'e6

. . . if the owners are na&ed in the proceedin's, and personal notice is provided for, it is

rather fro& tenderness to their interests, and in order to &ae sure that the opportunit#

for a hearin' shall not "e lost to the&, than fro& an# necessit# that the case shall

assu&e that for&. en a'ainst a

nonresident. uch a result would "e a deplora"le one.


5/145

record to show the proof of co&pliance with that re(uire&ent will "e discussed "# us

further on.

The o"servations which have 7ust "een &ade lead to the conclusion that the failure of

the cler to &ail the notice, if in fact he did so fail in his dut#, is not such an irre'ularit#,

as a&ounts to a denial of due process of law5 and hence in our opinion that irre'ularit#,

if proved, would not avoid the 7ud'&ent in this case. Notice was 'iven "# pu"lication in

a newspaper and this is the onl# for& of notice which the law unconditionall# re(uires.

This in our opinion is all that was a"solutel# necessar# to sustain the proceedin's.

2t will "e o"served that in considerin' the effect of this irre'ularit#, it &aes a difference

whether it "e viewed as a (uestion involvin' 7urisdiction or as a (uestion involvin' due

process of law. 2n the &atter of 7urisdiction there can "e no distinction "etween the

&uch and the little. The court either has 7urisdiction or it has not5 and if the re(uire&ent

as to the &ailin' of notice should "e considered as a step antecedent to the ac(uirin' of

7urisdiction, there could "e no escape fro& the conclusion that the failure to tae that

step was fatal to the validit# of the 7ud'&ent. 2n the application of the idea of due

process of law, on the other hand, it is clearl# unnecessar# to "e so ri'orous. The

7urisdiction "ein' once esta"lished, all that due process of law thereafter re(uires is an

opportunit# for the defendant to "e heard5 and as pu"lication was dul# &ade in the

newspaper, it would see& hi'hl# unreasona"le to hold that failure to &ail the notice was

fatal. 8e thin that in appl#in' the re(uire&ent of due process of law, it is per&issi"le toreflect upon the purposes of the provision which is supposed to have "een violated and

the principle underl#in' the e+ercise of 7udicial power in these proceedin's. )ud'e in the

li'ht of these conceptions, we thin that the provision of Act of Con'ress declarin' that

no person shall "e deprived of his propert# without due process of law has not "een

infrin'ed.

2n the pro'ress of this discussion we have stated the two conclusions5 ed, in the a"sence of proof to the

contrar#, to presu&e that he did have, or soon ac(uired, infor&ation as to the sale of hispropert#.

The Code of Civil rocedure, indeed, e+pressl# declares that there is a presu&ption

that thin's have happened accordin' to the ordinar# ha"its of life


6/145

addressed, we thin the presu&ption is clear and stron' that this notice reached the

defendant, there "ein' no proof that it was ever returned "# the postal officials as

undelivered. And if it was delivered in Manila, instead of "ein' forwarded to A&o#,

China, there is a pro"a"ilit# that the recipient was a person sufficientl# interested in his

affairs to send it or co&&unicate its contents to hi&.

f course if the 7urisdiction of the court or the sufficienc# of the process of law

depended upon the &ailin' of the notice "# the cler, the reflections in which we are

now indul'in' would "e idle and frivolous5 "ut the considerations &entioned are

introduced in order to show the propriet# of appl#in' to this situation the le'al

presu&ption to which allusion has "een &ade. /pon that presu&ption, supported "# the

circu&stances of this case, ,we do not hesitate to found the conclusion that the

defendant voluntaril# a"andoned all thou'ht of savin' his propert# fro& the o"li'ation

which he had placed upon it5 that nowled'e of the proceedin's should "e i&puted to

hi&5 and that he ac(uiesced in the conse(uences of those proceedin's after the# had

"een acco&plished. /nder these circu&stances it is clear that the &erit of this &otion

is, as we have alread# stated, adversel# affected in a hi'h de'ree "# the dela# in asin'

for relief. Nor is it an ade(uate repl# to sa# that the proponent of this &otion is an

ad&inistrator who onl# (ualified a few &onths "efore this &otion was &ade. No

disa"ilit# on the part of the defendant hi&self e+isted fro& the ti&e when the foreclosure

was effected until his death5 and we "elieve that the dela# in the appoint&ent of the

ad&inistrator and institution of this action is a circu&stance which is i&puta"le to the

parties in interest whoever the# &a# have "een. f course if the &inor heirs had

instituted an action in their own ri'ht to recover the propert#, it would have "een

different.

2t is, however, ar'ued that the defendant has suffered pre7udice "# reason of the fact

that the "an "eca&e the purchaser of the propert# at the foreclosure sale for a price

'reatl# "elow that which had "een a'reed upon in the &ort'a'e as the upset price of

the propert#. 2n this connection, it appears that in article nine of the &ort'a'e which was

the su"7ect of this foreclosure, as a&ended "# the notarial docu&ent of )ul# 19, 19*,

the parties to this &ort'a'e &ade a stipulation to the effect that the value therein placed

upon the &ort'a'ed properties should serve as a "asis of sale in case the de"t should

re&ain unpaid and the "an should proceed to a foreclosure. The upset price stated in

that stipulation for all the parcels involved in this foreclosure was 0!*,. 2t is said in

"ehalf of the appellant that when the "an "ou'ht in the propert# for the su& of

11,0 it violated that stipulation.

2t has "een held "# this court that a clause in a &ort'a'e providin' for a tipo, or upset

price, does not prevent a foreclosure, nor affect the validit# of a sale &ade in the

foreclosure proceedin's. e thatvalue of the propert#, for no prudent &an will ris his &one# in "iddin' for and "u#in'

that title which he has reason to fear &a# #ears thereafter "e swept awa# throu'h so&e

occult and not readil# discovera"le defect.


7/145

the cler of the court5 and has no ri'ht to &eddle undul# with the "usiness of the cler in

the perfor&ance of his duties. ?avin' no control over this officer, the liti'ant &ust

depend upon the court to see that the duties i&posed on the cler are perfor&ed.

ther considerations no less potent contri"ute to stren'then the conclusion 7ust stated.

There is no principle of law "etter settled than that after 7urisdiction has once "een

re(uired, ever# act of a court of 'eneral 7urisdiction shall "e presu&ed to have "een

ri'htl# done. This rule is applied to ever# 7ud'&ent or decree rendered in the various

sta'es of the proceedin's fro& their initiation to their co&pletion in' these presu&ptions is to ena"le the court to sustain a prior 7ud'&ent in the

face of such an o&ission. 2f we were to hold that the 7ud'&ent in this case is void

"ecause the proper affidavit is not present in the file of papers which we call the record,

the result would "e that in the future ever# title in the 2slands restin' upon a 7ud'&ent

lie that now "efore us would depend, for its continued securit#, upon the presence of

such affidavit a&on' the papers and would "e lia"le at an# &o&ent to "e destro#ed "#

the disappearance of that piece of paper. 8e thin that no court, with a proper re'ard

for the securit# of 7udicial proceedin's and for the interests which have "# law "een

confided to the courts, would incline to favor such a conclusion. 2n our opinion the

proper course in a case of this ind is to hold that the le'al presu&ption that the cler

perfor&ed his dut# still &aintains notwithstandin' the a"sence fro& the record of the

proper proof of that fact.

2n this connection it is i&portant to "ear in &ind that under the practice prevailin' in the

hilippine 2slands the word $record$ is used in a loose and "road sense, as indicatin'

the collective &ass of papers which contain the histor# of all the successive steps taen

in a case and which are finall# deposited in the archives of the cler:s office as a

&e&orial of the liti'ation. 2t is a &atter of 'eneral infor&ation that no 7ud'&ent roll, or

"oo of final record, is co&&onl# ept in our courts for the purpose of recordin' the

pleadin's and principal proceedin's in actions which have "een ter&inated5 and in

particular, no such record is ept in the Court of %irst 2nstance of the cit# of Manila.

There is, indeed, a section of the Code of Civil rocedure which directs that such a

"oo of final record shall "e ept5 "ut this provision has, as a &atter of co&&on

nowled'e, "een 'enerall# i'nored. The result is that in the present case we do not

have the assistance of the recitals of such a record to ena"le us to pass upon the

validit# of this 7ud'&ent and as alread# stated the (uestion &ust "e deter&ined "#

e+a&inin' the papers contained in the entire file.

But it is insisted "# counsel for this &otion that the affidavit of Bernardo Chan # arcia

showin' that upon April , 19!, he sent a notification throu'h the &ail addressed to the

defendant at Manila, hilippine 2slands, should "e accepted as affir&ative proof that the

cler of the court failed in his dut# and that, instead of hi&self sendin' the re(uisite



8/145

notice throu'h the &ail, he relied upon Bernardo to send it for hi&. 8e do not thin that

this is "# an# &eans a necessar# inference. f course if it had affir&ativel# appeared

that the cler hi&self had atte&pted to co&pl# with this order and had directed the

notification to Manila when he should have directed it to A&o#, this would "e conclusive

that he had failed to co&pl# with the e+act ter&s of the order5 "ut such is not this case.

That the cler of the attorne#s for the plaintiff erroneousl# sent a notification to the

defendant at a &istaen address affords in our opinion ver# sli'ht "asis for supposin'

that the cler &a# not have sent notice to the ri'ht address.

There is undou"tedl# 'ood authorit# to support the position that when the record states

the evidence or &aes an aver&ent with reference to a 7urisdictional fact, it will not "e

presu&ed that there was other or different evidence respectin' the fact, or that the fact

was otherwise than stated. 2f, to 'ive an illustration, it appears fro& the return of the

officer that the su&&ons was served at a particular place or in a particular &anner, it

will not "e presu&ed that service was also &ade at another place or in a different

&anner5 or if it appears that service was &ade upon a person other than the defendant,

it will not "e presu&ed, in the silence of the record, that it was &ade upon the defendant

also es theauthorit# of a Court of %irst 2nstance to set aside a final 7ud'&ent and per&it a renewal

of the liti'ation in the sa&e cause. This is as follows6

EC. 113. /pon such ter&s as &a# "e 7ust the court &a# relieve a part# or le'al

representative fro& the 7ud'&ent, order, or other proceedin' taen a'ainst hi& throu'h

his &istae, inadvertence, surprise, or e+cusa"le ne'lect5 rovided, That application

thereof "e &ade within a reasona"le ti&e, "ut in no case e+ceedin' si+ &onths after

such 7ud'&ent, order, or proceedin' was taen.

An additional re&ed# "# petition to the upre&e Court is supplied "# section 13 of the

sa&e Code. The first para'raph of this section, in so far as pertinent to this discussion,

provides as follows6

8hen a 7ud'&ent is rendered "# a Court of %irst 2nstance upon default, and a part#

thereto is un7ustl# deprived of a hearin' "# fraud, accident, &istae or e+cusa"le

ne'li'ence, and the Court of %irst 2nstance which rendered the 7ud'&ent has finall#

ad7ourned so that no ade(uate re&ed# e+ists in that court, the part# so deprived of a

hearin' &a# present his petition to the upre&e Court within si+t# da#s after he first

learns of the rendition of such 7ud'&ent, and not thereafter, settin' forth the facts and

pra#in' to have 7ud'&ent set aside. . . .

2t is evident that the proceedin' conte&plated in this section is intended to supple&ent

the re&ed# provided "# section 1135 and we "elieve the conclusion irresisti"le that there

is no other &eans reco'ni>ed "# law where"# a defeated part# can, "# a proceedin' in

the sa&e cause, procure a 7ud'&ent to "e set aside, with a view to the renewal of the

liti'ation.

The Code of Civil rocedure purports to "e a co&plete s#ste& of practice in civil

causes, and it contains provisions descri"in' with &uch fullness the various steps to "e

taen in the conduct of such proceedin's. To this end it defines with precision the

&ethod of "e'innin', conductin', and concludin' the civil action of whatever species5

and "# section 49 of the sa&e Code it is declared that the procedure in all civil action

shall "e in accordance with the provisions of this Code. 8e are therefore of the opinion

that the re&edies prescri"ed in sections 113 and 13 are e+clusive of all others, so far

as relates to the openin' and continuation of a liti'ation which has "een onceconcluded.

The &otion in the present case does not confor& to the re(uire&ents of either of these

provisions5 and the conse(uence is that in our opinion the action of the Court of %irst

2nstance in dis&issin' the &otion was proper.

2f the (uestion were ad&ittedl# one relatin' &erel# to an irre'ularit# of procedure, we

cannot suppose that this proceedin' would have taen the for& of a &otion in the

cause, since it is clear that, if "ased on such an error, the ca&e to late for relief in the

Court of %irst 2nstance. But as we have alread# seen, the &otion attacs the 7ud'&ent

of the court as void for want of 7urisdiction over the defendant. The idea underl#in' the

&otion therefore is that inas&uch as the 7ud'&ent is a nullit# it can "e attaced in an#

wa# and at an# ti&e. 2f the 7ud'&ent were in fact void upon its face, that is, if it were

shown to "e a nullit# "# virtue of its own recitals, there &i'ht possi"l# "e so&ethin' in

this. 8here a 7ud'&ent or 7udicial order is void in this sense it &a# "e said to "e a

lawless thin', which can "e treated as an outlaw and slain at si'ht, or i'nored wherever

and whenever it e+hi"its its head.

But the 7ud'&ent in (uestion is not void in an# such sense. 2t is entirel# re'ular in for&,

and the alle'ed defect is one which is not apparent upon its face. 2t follows that even if

the 7ud'&ent could "e shown to "e void for want of 7urisdiction, or for lac of due

process of law, the part# a''rieved there"# is "ound to resort to so&e appropriate

proceedin' to o"tain relief. /nder accepted principles of law and practice, lon'

reco'ni>ed in A&erican courts, a proper re&ed# in such case, after the ti&e for appeal

or review has passed, is for the a''rieved part# to "rin' an action to en7oin the



9/145

7ud'&ent, if not alread# carried into effect5 or if the propert# has alread# "een disposed

of he &a# institute suit to recover it. 2n ever# situation of this character an appropriate

re&ed# is at hand5 and if propert# has "een taen without due process, the law

concedes due process to recover it. 8e accordin'l# old that, assu&in' the 7ud'&ent to

have "een void as alle'ed "# the proponent of this &otion, the proper re&ed# was "#

an ori'inal proceedin' and not "# &otion in the cause. As we have alread# seen our

Code of Civil rocedure defines the conditions under which relief a'ainst a 7ud'&ent

&a# "e productive of conclusion for this court to reco'ni>e such a proceedin' as proper

under conditions different fro& those defined "# law. /pon the point of procedure hereinvolved, we refer to the case of eople vs. ?arrison

that a &otion will not lie to vacate a 7ud'&ent after the lapse of the ti&e li&ited "#

statute if the 7ud'&ent is not void on its face5 and in all cases, after the lapse of the ti&e

li&ited "# statute if the 7ud'&ent is not void on its face5 and all cases, after the lapse of

such ti&e, when an atte&pt is &ade to vacate the 7ud'&ent "# a proceedin' in court for

that purpose an action re'ularl# "rou'ht is prefera"le, and should "e re(uired. 2t will "e

noted taen ver"ati& fro& the California Code


10/145

G.R. No. 11139 A*&' 12, 2002

ON. ALFREO LIM a%" RAFAELI!O GARA4BLAS, petitioners,vs.

!E CO5R! OF APPEALS, ON. ILFREO RE4ES a%" BIS!RO PIGALLE,INC., respondents.

CARPIO, J./

!h) Ca&)

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1of the Decision of the Court of Appeals

dated March 0, 1993,0and its @esolution dated )ul# 13, 19933which denied

petitionersL &otion for reconsideration. The assailed Decision sustained the orders

dated Dece&"er 09, 1990, )anuar# 0, 1993 and March 0, 1993, issued "# Branch 3*

of the @e'ional Trial Court of Manila. The trial courtLs orders en7oined petitioner Alfredo

i&


11/145

?owever, despite the trial courtLs order, i& still issued a closure order on BistroLs

operations effective )anuar# 03, 1993, even sendin' police&en to carr# out his closure

order.

n )anuar# 0, 1993, Bistro filed an $/r'ent Motion for Conte&pt$ a'ainst i& and the

police&en who stopped BistroLs operations on )anuar# 03, 1993. At the hearin' of the

&otion for conte&pt on )anuar# 09, 1993, Bistro withdrew its &otion on condition that

i& would respect the courtLs in7unction.

?owever, on %e"ruar# 10, 13, 1, 0* and 04, and on March 1 and 0, 1993, i&, actin'

throu'h his a'ents and police&en, a'ain disrupted BistroLs "usiness operations.

Meanwhile, on %e"ruar# 14, 1993, i& filed a &otion to dissolve the in7unctive order of

)anuar# 0, 1993 and to dis&iss the case. i& insisted that the power of a &a#or to

inspect and investi'ate co&&ercial esta"lish&ents and their staff is i&plicit in the

statutor# power of the cit# &a#or to issue, suspend or revoe "usiness per&its and

licenses. This statutor# power is e+pressl# provided for in ection 11


12/145

2n their Me&orandu&, petitioners raise the followin' issues6

1. $D2D @ENDENT )/DE CMM2T @A;E AB/E % D2C@ET2N

AM/NT2N T ACI @ ECE % )/@2D2CT2N 2N 2/2N ?2 A2D

AA2ED @DE@ % DECEMBE@ 09, 1990, )AN/A@G 0, 1993 AND MA@C? 0,

1993O$

0. $D2D @ENDENT C/@T % AEA CMM2T @E;E@2BE E@@@ 2N

@ENDE@2N 2T AA2ED DEC22N % MA@C? 0, 1993 AND 2T AA2ED@E/T2N % )/G 13, 1993O$

3. $D2D A2D C2;2 CAE N. 90-*3410 AND A2D CA-.@. N. 33!1 BECME

MT AND ACADEM2C 8?EN T?E NE8 BANII C/B AND T?E ET2C

A@DEN @ETA/@ANT % @2;ATE @ENDENT 8E@E CED N )/G 1,

1993 /@/ANT T @D2NANCE N. 44!3O$

!h) R+$%* o( 'h) Cor'

The petition is without &erit.

Considerin' that the constitutionalit# of rdinance No. 44!3 was not raised "efore the

trial court or the Court of Appeals, and this issue is still under liti'ation in another

case,14the Court will deal onl# with the first two issues raised "# petitioner.

Validity of the Preliminary Injunction

BistroLs cause of action in the mandamusand prohi"ition proceedin's "efore the trial

court is the violation of its propert# ri'ht under its license to operate. The violation

consists of the wor disruption in BistroLs operations caused "# i& and his

su"ordinates as well as i&Ls refusal to issue a "usiness license to Bistro and wor

per&its to its staff for the #ear 1993. The pri&ar# relief pra#ed for "# Bistro is theissuance of writs of &andator# and prohi"itor# in7unction. The &andator# in7unction

sees to co&pel i& to accept BistroLs 1993 "usiness license application and to issue

BistroLs "usiness license. Also, the &andator# in7unction sees to co&pel i& to accept

the applications of BistroLs staff for wor per&its. The writ of prohi"itor# in7unction sees

to en7oin i& f ro& interferin', i&pedin' or otherwise closin' down BistroLs operations.

The trial court 'ranted onl# the prohi"itor# in7unction. This en7oined i& fro& interferin',

i&pedin' or otherwise closin' down BistroLs operations pendin' resolution of whether

i& can validl# refuse to issue BistroLs "usiness license and its staffLs wor per&its for

the #ear 1993.

i& contends that the Court of Appeals erred in upholdin' the prohi"itor# in7unction. i&

relies pri&aril# on his power, as Ma#or of the Cit# of Manila, to 'rant and refuse

&unicipal licenses and "usiness per&its as e+pressl# provided for in the ocal

overn&ent Code and the @evised Charter of the Cit# of Manila. i& ar'ues that the

powers 'ranted "# these laws i&plicitl# include the power to inspect, investi'ate and

close down BistroLs operations for violation of the conditions of its licenses and per&its.

n the other hand, Bistro asserts that the le'al provisions relied upon "# i& do not

appl# to the instant case. Bistro &aintains that the ocal overn&ent Code and the@evised Charter of the Cit# of Manila do not e+pressl# or i&pliedl# 'rant i& an# power

to prohi"it the operation of ni'ht clu"s. i& failed to specif# an# violation "# Bistro of the

conditions of its licenses and per&its. 2n refusin' to accept BistroLs "usiness license

application for the #ear 1993, Bistro clai&s that i& denied Bistro due process of law.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not co&&it 'rave a"use of discretion in

issuin' the prohi"itor# preli&inar# in7unction.

8e uphold the findin's of the Court of Appeals.

The authorit# of &a#ors to issue "usiness licenses and per&its is "e#ond (uestion. Thelaw e+pressl# provides for such authorit#. ection 11


13/145


14/145



15/145

_____________________________________________

T?2@D D2;22N

G.R. No. 93891 March 11, 1991

POLL5!ION A;5ICA!ION BOAR, petitionervs.

CO5R! OF APPEALS a%" SOLAR !E

@ E / T 2 N

FELICIANO, J.!p

etitioner ollution Ad7udication Board


16/145

Board to conduct another inspection and evaluation of olar:s wastewater treat&ent

facilities. 2n the sa&e rder, the Board directed the @e'ional E+ecutive Director of the

DEN@ NC@ to conduct the inspection and evaluation within thirt#


17/145

su"7ect &atter of allowa"le standards set "# the Co&&ission, then the Board &a# act

on anex parte"asis when it finds at leastprima facieproof that the wastewater or

&aterial involved presents an $i&&ediate threat to life, pu"lic health, safet# or welfare

or to ani&al or plant life.$ ince the applica"le standards set "# the Co&&ission

e+istin' at an# 'iven ti&e &a# well not cover ever# possi"le or i&a'ina"le ind of

effluent or waste dischar'e, the 'eneral standard of an $i&&ediate threat to life, pu"lic

health, safet# or welfare, or to ani&al and plant life$ re&ains necessar#.

/pon the other hand, the Court &ust assu&e that the e+tant allowa"le standards have"een set "# the Co&&ission or Board precisel# in order to avoid or neutrali>e an

$i&&ediate threat to life, pu"lic health, safet# or welfare, or to ani&al or plant life.::

ection of the Effluent @e'ulations of 19!0 =sets out the &a+i&u& per&issi"le levels

of ph#sical and che&ical su"stances which effluents fro& do&estic wastewater

treat&ent plants and industrial plants$ &ust not e+ceed $when dischar'ed into "odies of

water classified as Class A, B, C, D, B and C in accordance with the 194! NCC

@ules and @e'ulations.$ The waters of Tullahan-Tine7eros @iver are classified as inland

waters Class D under ection *! of the 194! NCC @ules and @e'ulations >which in

part provides that6

ec. *!.&ater 'sa!e and Classification.( T#e qualit$ of P#ilippine "aters s#all be

maintained in a safe and satisfactor$ condition accordin! to t#eir best usa!es.)or t#is

purpose, all "ater s#all be classified accordin! to t#e follo"in! beneficial usa!es6


18/145

in &'.1$ &'.1. MBA

i= Dissolved

o+#'en, &'.1.

7= ettlea"le . 1.

Matter, &'.1.

= Total Dis ! *1

solved olids

&'.1.

l= Total olids 1, *9

&'.1.

&= Tur"idit#

-T' 5 ppm, *i674

The Nove&"er 19!* inspections report concluded that6

@ecords of the Co&&ission show that the plant under its previous owner, %ine Touch

%inishin' Corporation, was issued a Notice of ;iolation on 0 Dece&"er 19! directin'

sa&e to cease and desist fro& conductin' d#ein' operation until such ti&e the waste

treat&ent plant is alread# co&pleted and operational. The new owner olar Te+tile

Corporation infor&ed the Co&&ission of the plant ac(uisition thru its letter dated March

19!*


19/145

2n this connection, we note that in Tec#nolo!$ Developers, nc. v. Court of appeals, et

al.,12the Court ver# recentl# upheld the su&&ar# closure ordered "# the Actin' Ma#or

of ta. Maria, Bulacan, of a pollution-causin' esta"lish&ent, after findin' that the

records showed that6

1. No &a#or:s per&it had "een secured. 8hile it is true that the &atter of deter&inin'

whether there is a pollution of the environ&ent that re(uires control if not prohi"ition of

the operation of a "usiness is essentiall# addressed to the then National ollution

Control Co&&ission of the Ministr# of ?u&an ettle&ents, now the Environ&entalMana'e&ent Bureau of the Depart&ent of Environ&ent and Natural @esources, it &ust

"e reco'ni>ed that the &a#or of a town has as &uch responsi"ilit# to protect its

inha"itants fro& pollution, and "# virtue of his police power, he &a# den# the application

for a per&it to operate a "usiness or otherwise close the sa&e unless appropriate

&easures are taen to control andor avoid in7ur# to the health of the residents of the

co&&unit# fro& the e&ission in the operation of the "usiness.

0. The Actin' Ma#or, in a letter of %e"ruar# l*, 19!9, called the attention of petitioner to

the pollution e&itted "# the fu&es of its plant whose offensive odor $not onl# pollute the

air in the localit# "ut also affect the health of the residents in the area,$ so that petitioner

was ordered to stop its operation until further orders and it was re(uired to "rin' the

followin'6

+++ +++ +++


20/145

olar clai&s finall# that the petition for certiorari was the proper re&ed# as the

(uestioned rder and 8rit of E+ecution issued "# the Board were patent nullities. ince

we have concluded that the rder and 8rit of E+ecution were entirel# within the lawful

authorit# of petitioner Board, the trial court did not err when it dis&issed olar:s petition

for certiorari. 2t follows that the proper re&ed# was an appeal fro& the trial court to the

Court of Appeals, as olar did in fact appeal.

ACC@D2NG, the etition for @eview is 'iven D/E C/@E and the Decision of the

Court of Appeals dated 4 %e"ruar# 199 and its @esolution dated 1 Ma# 199 in A.C.-.@. No. 1!!01 are here"# ET A2DE. The rder of petitioner Board dated 00

epte&"er 19!! and the 8rit of E+ecution, as well as the decision of the trial court

dated 01 )ul# 19!9, are here"# @E2NTATED, without pre7udice to the ri'ht of olar to

contest the correctness of the "asis of the Board:s rder and 8rit of E+ecution at a

pu"lic hearin' "efore the Board.

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK



21/145

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-=6=96 F):rar 2, 19=0

ANG !IBA4, r)r)&)%')" : !ORIBIO !EOORO, #a%a*)r a%" ro$)'or, a%"NA!IONAL OR?ERS BRO!EROO,petitioners,vs.

!E CO5R! OF IN5S!RIAL RELA!IONS a%" NA!IONAL LABOR 5NION,

INC.,respondents.

LA5REL, J.!

The olicitor-eneral in "ehalf of the respondent Court of 2ndustrial @elations in the

a"ove-entitled case has filed a &otion for reconsideration and &oves that, for the

reasons stated in his &otion, we reconsider the followin' le'al conclusions of the

&a7orit# opinion of this Court6

1. Fue un contrato de tra"a7o, asi individual co&o colectivo, sin ter&ino fi7o de duracion

o (ue no sea para una deter&inada, ter&ina o "ien por voluntad de cual(uiera de las

partes o cada ve> (ue ile'a el pla>o fi7ado para el pa'o de los salarios se'uncostu&"re en la localidad o cunado se ter&ine la o"ra5

0. Fue los o"reros de una e&presa fa"ril, (ue han cele"rado contrato, #a individual #a

colectiva&ente, con ell, sin tie&po fi7o, # (ue se han visto o"li'ados a cesar en sus

tar"a7os por ha"erse declarando paro for>oso en la fa"rica en la cual tar"a7an, de7an de

ser e&pleados u o"reros de la &is&a5

3. Fue un patrono o sociedad (ue ha cele"rado un contrato colectivo de tra"a7o con

sus os"reros sin tie&po fi7o de duracion # sin ser para una o"ra deter&i&inada # (ue

se nie'a a read&itir a dichos o"reros (ue cesaron co&o consecuencia de un paro

for>oso, no es culpa"le de practica in7usta in incurre en la sancion penal del articulo

de la e# No. 013 del Co&&onwealth, aun(ue su ne'ativa a read&itir se de"a a (ue

dichos o"reros pertenecen a un deter&inado or'anis&o o"rero, puesto (ue tales #a

han de7ado deser e&pleados su#os por ter&inacion del contrato en virtud del paro.

The respondent National a"or /nion, 2nc., on the other hand, pra#s for the vacation of

the 7ud'e&ent rendered "# the &a7orit# of this Court and the re&andin' of the case to

the Court of 2ndustrial @elations for a new trial, and avers6

1. That Tori"io Teodoro:s clai& that on epte&"er 0*, 193!, there was shorta'e of

leather soles in AN T2BAG &ain' it necessar# for hi& to te&poraril# la# off the

&e&"ers of the National a"or /nion 2nc., is entirel# false and unsupported "# the

records of the Bureau of Custo&s and the Boos of Accounts of native dealers in

leather.

0. That the supposed lac of leather &aterials clai&ed "# Tori"io Teodoro was "ut a

sche&e to s#ste&aticall# prevent the forfeiture of this "ond despite the "reach of his

CNT@ACT with the hilippine Ar.

3. That Tori"io Teodoro:s letter to the hilippine Ar dated epte&"er 09, 193!,


22/145

olicitor-eneral. 8e shall proceed to dispose of the &otion for new trial of the

respondent la"or union. Before doin' this, however, we dee& it necessar#, in the

interest of orderl# procedure in cases of this nature, in interest of orderl# procedure in

cases of this nature, to &ae several o"servations re'ardin' the nature of the powers of

the Court of 2ndustrial @elations and e&phasi>e certain 'uidin' principles which should

"e o"served in the trial of cases "rou'ht "efore it. 8e have re-e+a&ined the entire

record of the proceedin's had "efore the Court of 2ndustrial @elations in this case, and

we have found no su"stantial evidence that the e+clusion of the !9 la"orers here was

due to their union affiliation or activit#. The whole transcript taen contains what

transpired durin' the hearin' and is &ore of a record of contradictor# and conflictin'

state&ents of opposin' counsel, with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views.

2t is evident that these state&ents and e+pressions of views of counsel have no

evidentiar# value.

The Court of 2ndustrial @elations is a special court whose functions are specificall#

stated in the law of its creation


23/145

ed le'al &ethods of securin' evidence and infor&in' itself

of facts &aterial and relevant to the controvers#. Boards of in(uir# &a# "e appointed for

the purpose of investi'atin' and deter&inin' the facts in an# 'iven case, "ut their report

and decision are onl# advisor#. in' e+a&iners or other su"ordinates to render final decision, with theri'ht to appeal to "oard or co&&ission, "ut in our case there is no such statutor#

authorit#.


24/145

of this case shall "e re&anded to the Court of 2ndustrial @elations, with instruction that it

reopen the case, receive all such evidence as &a# "e relevant and otherwise proceed

in accordance with the re(uire&ents set forth hereina"ove. o ordered.

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

ECND D2;22N

G.R. No. 1>3166 )c)#:)r 16, 200>

!ERESI!A L. ER!5ES,1etitioner,vs.

;5LIE B5ENAFLOR a%" B5REA5 OF IMMIGRA!ION, @espondents.

D E C 2 2 N

P5NO, J./

Before us is a petition for review "# certiorariunder @ule of the @ules of Court,

seein' to review and set aside the decision 0and resolution3of the Court of Appeals the co&plaints of private respondent )ulie Buenaflor,

A Cosino and Manuelito ao, a'ainst petitioner.

Accordin' to ;illas, private respondent Buenaflor co&plained of havin' "een convinced

"# petitioner into pa#in' the total a&ount of 49,. in e+chan'e for the processin'

of her visa, passport and other travel docu&ents for )apan. rivate respondent

delivered to petitioner ecurit# Ban


25/145

docu&ent to prove the alle'ed receipt.$ As re'ards the co&plaints of ao and Cosino,

petitioner denied havin' &et or nown said persons.

%indin' petitionerLs e+planation $unsatisfactor# and her defense wea,$ Co&&issioner

@odri'ue> issued ersonnel rder No. @B@ 9!-*,4preventivel# suspendin' her for

si+t#


26/145

of ,. fro& private respondent5 and d= letter of private respondent:s counsel to

petitioner de&andin' the refund of 49,. fro& petitioner.

n cto"er 1, 199!, petitioner, acco&panied "# her counsel, and private respondent

appeared "efore pecial rosecutor dela Cru> for the for&al investi'ation of the

case.1The second hearin' too place on cto"er 04, 199!, durin' which, petitioner

su"&itted her Counter-Affidavit1*and the affidavits of her witnesses.?er version was6

.1. 2 first &et Ms. Buenaflor so&eti&e in 199* when 2 was still assi'ned at the eneralervices Division of the Bureau of 2&&i'ration5

.0. At that ti&e, Ms. Buenaflor represented to &e that she was connected with a travel

a'enc# assi'ned to processfacilitate docu&ents of their clients in the Buereau of

2&&i'ration5

.3. 2ndeed, 2 saw Ms. Buenaflor processin' and &ain' follow-ups of docu&ents in the

different DivisionsDepart&ents of the Bureau of 2&&i'ration si&ilar to what were "ein'

done "# the representatives of other travel a'encies transactin' "usiness therewith5

.. Durin' that period, Ms. Buenaflor and &e "eca&e close friends "ecause shefre(uentl# visited &e in office at eneral ervices Division and would even sta#

thereat while processin' docu&ents and waitin' for their release. 2n fact, she often too

her lunch and &erienda with &e and so&eti&es, with the other e&plo#ees of our

division5

.. o&eti&e in the third wee of Dece&"er 1994, 2 was infor&ed "# relatives in

our ho&etown that "rother, Mariano $Dido$ ;ertudes was seriousl# ill and was

thereafter confined on Dece&"er 00, 1994 at in'oo' eneral ?ospital located at

in'oo' Cit#, Misa&is riental5

.*. The t#pe of illness of "rother re(uired e+tensive treat&ent and &edication5 and

for this reason, the# re(uested for financial assistance to defra# the e+penses therefor5

.4. ince 2 was then in financial distress, 2 was constrained to "orrow &one# with

interests fro& Ms. Buenaflor and other close friends of &ine. As a ind 'esture on the

part of Ms. Buenaflor she e+tended to &e a loan in the total a&ount of ,. as

represented "# ecurit# Ban chec nos. 1494 and 149! in the respective

a&ounts of 3,. and 0,. ation of "rother. 2t was, however, to

no avail "ecause "rother died on )anuar# *, 199!5

.11. ursuant to our a'ree&ent, 2 was a"le to pa# Ms. Buenaflor on install&ent "asisthe total a&ount of*,. at earlier indicated address on the followin' dates6

DATE AM/NT

%e"ruar# 0!, 199! 1,.

March 31, 199! 1,.

April 3, 199! 1,.

Ma# 3, 199! 1,.

.10. 2 tendered the said pa#&ents to Ms. Buenaflor at residence on the dates

earlier enu&erated in the presence of house&aids, Eli>a Co&po and )ocel#n

@e#es5 + + +

etitioner averred that private respondent &isrepresented to her

the Pina!saman! *inumpaan! *ala$sa$0of her two house&aids, Eli>a Co&po and

)ocel#n @e#es, to prove that she had full# paid her o"li'ation to private respondent.

iewise, she su"&itted the handwritten 7oint sworn state&ent01of Ernesto ;. Clo&a

and )hun M. @o&ero, &edia practitioners, to prove that ;illas ased for petitionerLs

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt21


27/145

for'iveness "efore he died, ad&ittin' that he onl# sent his letter dated )ul# 04, 199! to

Co&&issioner @odri'ue> in consideration of the a&ount 'iven "# private respondent.

n the sa&e hearin', the parties a'reed to su"&it the instant case for

resolution.00Thus, in his @esolution dated Nove&"er 10, 199!,03pecial rosecutor

dela Cru> found petitioner 'uilt# of 'rave &isconduct and reco&&ended her dis&issal

fro& the service.

Meanti&e, the case instituted "# private respondent with the ffice of the &"uds&anwas referred to the ffice of the Cit# rosecutor, thus6

After evaluation, the undersi'ned finds that the char'es i&puted a'ainst the respondent

are %o' o(($c) r)+a')"and that the ad&inistrative aspect of the case had alread# "eenundertaen "# the Bureau of 2&&i'ration.

2n view thereof, it is respectfull# reco&&ended that the instant co&plaint "e r)()rr)" 'o'h) O(($c) o( 'h) C$' Pro&)c'or o( Ma%$+a (or aror$a') ac'$o%.

@[email protected], viz6

8?E@E%@E, respondent Teresita . ;ertude> is here"# found lia"le for 'rave

&isconduct under D No. !4 and the Ad&inistrative Code of 19!4. Accordin'l#, she is

ordered dis&issed fro& the service effective i&&ediatel# with forfeiture of all "enefits

under the law, with pre7udice to her reinstate&ent in this Bureau and all its "ranches.

@[email protected]

The order (uoted the pertinent portion of pecial rosecutor dela Cru>:s resolution, viz6

After carefull# wei'hin' and evaluatin' the versions of the co&plainant and the

respondent, this ffice is &ore inclined to 'ive credence to co&plainant:s declarations

that she was indeed duped "# the respondent into partin' with the hard-earned &one#

of 49,. on the pro&ise of the respondent that she would secure a passport and

visa for the co&plainant to )apan.

@espondent:s ali"i that the said a&ount was a loan fro& the co&plainant, who is her

friend, is hi'hl# un"elieva"le. Co&plainant does not appear to "e a rich person who

would so easil# part with such "i' a&ount of &one# without an# securit# without an#

hope or assurance of "ein' re-paid.

The fact that co&plainant paid 49,. to the respondent so she could 'et apassport and a visa to wor in )apan as a factor# worer clearl# showed that she was

desperatel# in need of a 7o". %or her to 'ive such a&ount to the respondent as an

unsecured loan is e+tre&el# incredulous.

@espondent:s clai& that the present co&plaint is pure harass&ent "# the co&plainant is

co&pletel# "ereft of credence. 8hat "enefit or advanta'e would the co&plainant

achieve in fa"ricatin' char'es a'ainst the respondentO

2f the co&plainant filed this co&plaint, it was "ecause she was wron'ed "# the

respondent.

iewise, respondent:s alle'ation that the ,. she received fro& the

co&plainant was a loan "ecause she


28/145

etitioner appealed to the CC,30raisin' the issues of lac of due process and lac of

su"stantial evidence. n Nove&"er 19, 1999, the CC dis&issed petitioner:s appeal. 2t

held, in part, that6

A careful stud# of the records in the li'ht of the ar'u&ents of appellant reveals that the

re(uire&ents of due process have "een dul# o"served in the proceedin's had in this

case.

+ + +

As to the second issue, the Co&&ission finds su"stantial evidence to prove that

respondent received &one# in e+chan'e for her services in facilitatin' the issuance of

passport and visa of )ulie Bernardo failed to present an# evidence that she 'ave an# securit# in return for said

loan which &aes her version hi'hl# incredi"le. + + +33

etitioner filed a &otion for reconsideration3of the CC:s @esolution, to no avail. The

CC held6

2n so far as ;ertude>:s ille'al recruit&ent activities are concerned, the Co&&ission

finds the e+istence of clear su"stantial evidence to esta"lish the sa&e. Evidence

presented all point to the fact that ;ertude> solicited &one# fro& B2 clients in return for

a visa to )apan. The witnesses a'ainst ;ertude> include en' ;illas sees to destro# the credi"ilit# of witness Buenaflor "#

i&pl#in' that the for&er has a pendin' case for ille'al recruit&ent and estafa. @ecords,

however, show that the char'es a'ainst witness Buenaflor all ca&e up after ;ertude>

was for&all# char'ed "# the B2 and that such char'es have no reasona"le connection

with her ad&inistrative case pendin' "efore the Co&&ission. 2n this re'ard, +T#ere

bein! not#in! in record to s#o" t#at "itnesses "ere actuated b$ an$ improper motive,

t#eir testimon$ s#all be entitled to full fait# and credit.+


29/145

etitioner filed a Motion for @econsideration,contendin' that the CA failed to resolve

the issue of whether petitioner:s alle'ed ille'al recruit&ent activities are directl#

connected with her duties and responsi"ilities as a %in'erprint E+a&iner of the B2. This

&otion was denied.1

/ndaunted, petitioner filed this petition, su&&in' up the issues as follows6

1. 8?ET?E@ @ NT T?E ?N@ABE /@EME C/@T MAG @E;2E8 T?E

DEC22N % T?E C/@T % AEA 2N CA-.@. N. !4**5

0. 8?ET?E@ @ NT T?E C/@T % AEA @E;ED T?E ECND 2/E

@A2ED 2N T?E ET2T2N %@ @E;2E8 %2ED BE%@E 2T5

3. 8?ET?E@ @ NT T?E@E 2 /BTANT2A E;2DENCE T /@T T?E

%2ND2N T?AT ET2T2NE@ 2 /2TG % @A;E M2CND/CT5

. 8?ET?E@ @ NT A @M2E T %AC22TATE EMGMENT % ANT?E@

AB@AD CNT2T/TE @A;E M2CND/CT5

. 8?ET?E@ @ NT ET2T2NE@ 8A ACC@DED D/E @CE5

*. 8?ET?E@ @ NT T?E ACT CNT2T/T2N @A;E M2CND/CT M/T

?A;E A D2@ECT @EAT2N T T?E %/NCT2N % T?E /B2C %%2CE ?ED BG

@ENDENT 2N ADM2N2T@AT2;E CAE5 AND

4. 8?ET?E@ @ NT T?E AEED ACT CMM2TTED BG T?E ET2T2NE@ 2

D2@ECTG @EATED T ANG % ?E@ %/NCT2N A %2NE@@2NT EAM2NE@

AT T?E B/@EA/ % [email protected]

The petition is denied.

8e shall first resolve the issue of due process. etitioner contends that the essential

re(uire&ents of due process as laid down in A%* !$:a 7. Cor' o( I%"&'r$a+R)+a'$o%&3and or)+o 7. COMELECwere violated in the case at "ar. %irst, shecontends that she was denied of her ri'ht to a full hearin' when she was not accorded

the opportunit# to cross-e+a&ine the witnesses a'ainst her, as provided under ection

!, par. , Title 2, Boo ; of the Ad&inistrative Code of 19!4. he alle'edl# raised this

issue in her appeal "efore the CC.

The ar'u&ent is un&eritorious.

8e have e+plained the &eanin' of the ri'ht to cross-e+a&ination as a vital ele&ent of

due process as follows6

The ri'ht of a part# to confront and cross-e+a&ine opposin' witnesses in a 7udicial

liti'ation, "e it cri&inal or civil in nature, or in proceedin's "efore ad&inistrative tri"unals

with (uasi-7udicial powers, is a funda&ental ri'ht which is part of due process.

?owever, 'h) r$*h' $& a )r&o%a+ o%) h$ch #a :) a$7)" )@r)&&+ or $#+$)"+: co%"c' a#o%'$%* 'o a r)%%c$a'$o% o( 'h) r$*h' o( cro&&-)@a#$%a'$o%. !h&,h)r) a ar' ha& ha" 'h) oor'%$' 'o cro&&-)@a#$%) a $'%)&& :' (a$+)" 'oa7a$+ h$#&)+( o( $', h) %)c)&&ar$+ (or()$'& 'h) r$*h' 'o cro&&-)@a#$%)and thetesti&on# 'iven on direct e+a&ination of the witness will "e received or allowed to

re&ain in the record.*


30/145

@econsideration with the CC5 f= an Appeal to the CA5 '= a Motion for @econsideration

with the CA5 and h= the instant petition for review.

econd, petitioner contends that Co&&issioner @odri'ue> violated the principle that

$the tri"unal or "od# or an# of its 7ud'es &ust act on its or his own independent

consideration of the law and facts of the controvers# and not si&pl# accept the views of

a su"ordinate in arrivin' at a decision$ when his denial of her Motion to @e-open and his

order findin' her 'uilt# of 'rave &isconduct were "ased e+clusivel# on the resolution of

pecial rosecutor dela Cru>.!

This ar'u&ent is liewise unavailin'.

There is nothin' essentiall# wron' in the head of a "ureau adoptin' the

reco&&endation of a su"ordinate. ection 4, Boo ; of the Ad&inistrative Code of

19!4 'ives the chief of "ureau or office or depart&ent the power to dele'ate the tas of

investi'atin' a case to a su"ordinate.98hat due process de&ands is for the chief of

the "ureau to personall# wei'h and assess the evidence which the su"ordinate has

'athered and not &erel# to rel# on the reco&&endation of said investi'atin' officer.

2n the case at "ar, the order of Co&&issioner @odri'ue> en7o#s the disputa"le

presu&ption that official duties have "een re'ularl# perfor&ed. That his decision (uotes

the resolution of pecial rosecutor dela Cru> does not necessaril# i&pl# that he did not

personall# e+a&ine the affidavits and evidence presented "# the parties. etitioner:s

"are assertion that Co&&issioner @odri'ue> did not personall# e+a&ine the evidence,

without &ore, is not sufficient to overco&e this presu&ption.

Third, petitioner contends that the CC did not have "asis in findin'6 a= that the

affidavits of $en' ;illas e, wei'h and anal#>e evidence all over

a'ain.8ell-settled is the rule that the findin's of fact of (uasi-7udicial a'encies, lie the

B2 and the CC, are accorded not onl# respect "ut even finalit# if such findin's are

supported "# su"stantial evidence.u"stantial evidence is such a&ount of relevant

evidence which a reasona"le &ind &i'ht accept as ade(uate to support a conclusion,

even if other e(uall# reasona"le &inds &i'ht conceiva"l# opine otherwise.*

2n the case at "ar, we note that contrar# to petitioner:s stance, the affidavits of ao and

Cosino do appear in the records of the CC.42n an# case, the affidavits of ;illas,

Cosino, u"riano, ao and %lores are of little relevance to the case at "ar. 2f an#, the#

are &erel# corro"oratin' evidence. Note that it was onl# in the CC:s resolution on

petitioner:s Motion for @econsideration that said affidavits were &entioned. These

affidavits were not used as "asis for the decision rendered "# the B2, the &ain decision

of the CC den#in' the appeal of petitioner and the decision of the CA. 8e find the

unani&ous findin' of 'uilt of the B2, the CC and the CA a&pl# supported "# the

followin' evidence on record6 a= the co&plaint-affidavit of private respondent5 "= the

affidavit of )essil#n utierre>5 c= copies of the passport and application for a visa of

petitioner:s son5 d= copies of B Chec Nos. 1494 and 149!5 and e= letter of

private respondent:s counsel to petitioner de&andin' fro& petitioner the refund ofthe49,. that private respondent paid to petitioner.

As to the other contentions, we note that in addition to the self-servin' (uotations of

petitioner fro& the co&plaint-affidavit of private respondent, said co&plaint-affidavit

cate'oricall# alle'ed that petitioner told private respondent that the latter would $"e

receivin' a salar# of one lapadper da# as a factor# worer and that should she accept

petitioner:s offer, all that would "e re(uired of her was to 'ive petitioner the a&ount

of !,..$ rivate respondent also cate'oricall# alle'ed that she was char'in'

petitioner for her $failure to &ae 'ood her ro#$&) 'o ")+oher after receivin' thea&ount of 49,. in consideration of ao: +ac)#)%'in )apan.$ Thus, contrar# topetitioner:s stance, the assailed findin's of the CC are supported "# private

respondent:s co&plaint-affidavit.

Moreover, it is well-settled that it is not for the appellate court to su"stitute its own

7ud'&ent for that of the ad&inistrative a'enc# on the sufficienc# of the evidence and the

credi"ilit# of the witnesses. Ad&inistrative decisions on &atters within their 7urisdiction

are entitled to respect and can onl# "e set aside on proof of 'rave a"use of discretion,

fraud or error of law. None of these vices has "een shown in this case.!

8e shall now proceed to the other issue6 whether petitioner is 'uilt# of 'rave

&isconduct warrantin' her re&oval fro& 'overn&ent service.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_153166_2005.html#fnt58


31/145

Citin' Sar$*#:a 7. Pa&o,9petitioner contends that $&isconduct, warrantin're&oval fro& office of a pu"lic officer, &ust have a direct relation to and connected with

the perfor&ance of official duties, a&ountin' either to &alad&inistration or willful,

intentional ne'lect and failure to dischar'e the duties of the office.$ ince the B2 is a

'overn&ent a'enc# principall# responsi"le for the ad&inistration and enforce&ent of

i&&i'ration, citi>enship and alien ad&ission and re'istration laws, $"# no stretch of

i&a'ination$ can there "e a direct relation "etween the function of a fin'erprint

e+a&iner and the alle'ed pro&ise to facilitate private respondent:s e&plo#&ent

a"road.*etitioner also capitali>es on the alle'ation of private respondent in her

co&plaint-affidavit that she and petitioner $"eca&e friends$ to contend that the acts

"ein' i&puted a'ainst her are personal and not office-related.*1

These ar'u&ents lac &erit.

The alle'ations in private respondentLs co&plaint-affidavit indicate that petitioner used

her position as a B2 e&plo#ee to assure private respondent that she could facilitate

petitioner:s deplo#&ent to )apan. rivate respondent alle'ed that $durin' one of those

ti&es that she dropped "# petitioner:s office, petitioner inti&ated to her that a*ro o( I##$*ra'$o% o(($c)r& )r) &ch)"+)" 'o +)a7) (or ;aa% (or 'ra$%$%* a%"'ha' )'$'$o%)r a& 'h) o%) ho r)c)$7)" a ca++ (ro# a ;aa%)&) Co%&+.$

etitioner $ased private respondent if she was interested in 'oin' to )apan"ecause)'$'$o%)r$++ ($%" a a 'o acco##o"a') h)r .$

Even petitioner:s own ad&issions show that her position as an e&plo#ee of the B2 &a#

"e utili>ed in connection with ille'al recruit&ent. 2n her &e&orandu& to Co&&issioner

@odri'ue>, as reiterated in her counter-affidavit, petitioner alle'ed that private

respondent was en'a'ed in ille'al recruit&ent and $a& &$%* )'$'$o%)rD& %a#) $%h)r ")a+$%*& $'h &o#) $##$*ra'$o% o(($c$a+& a%" )#+o))&, r)a:+ 'o)@)"$') 'h) roc)&&$%* o( 'h) "oc#)%'& :)+o%*$%* 'o h)r c+$)%'& .$ etitionerliewise clai&ed that she $")c+$%)" r$7a') r)&o%")%'D& roo&a+ 'ha' &h)D)&cor'D &o#) o( r$7a') r)&o%")%'D& c+$)%'& ho o+" :) +)a7$%* (or (or)$*%co%'r$)& :' $'h (a+&$($)" 'ra7)+ "oc#)%'&.$ rivate respondent even told her thatthe $proposed sche&e could easil# "e done :)ca&) :)$%* a% )#+o)) o( 'h$&Br)a, )'$'$o%)r ha& &)7)ra+ co%%)c'$o%& %o' o%+ a' 'h) N$%o A$%oI%')r%a'$o%a+ A$ror' NAIA :' a+&o $% Mac'a% I%')r%a'$o%a+ A$ror'.$

That her position is desi'nated as $fin'erprint e+a&iner$ is not deter&inative of the

issue of whether the char'e a'ainst her is wor-related. The alle'ations in the co&plaint

a'ainst petitioner and her own ad&issions show that her duties 'o "e#ond her 7o" title

and that the char'e a'ainst her is connected with her position as an e&plo#ee of the B2.

%inall#, petitioner contends that $a pro&ise to find a wa# to acco&&odate private

respondent and a representation that petitioner has a "rother who could help private

respondent find a 7o" are not &isconduct warrantin' the dis&issal of petitioner fro&

office$ "ut, $at &ost,$ onl# $entitles private respondent to civil inde&nit#.$ etitioner

contends that the CA:s findin' that petitioner &erel# &ade a $pro&ise to facilitate$

private respondent:s e&plo#&ent a"road, as distin'uished fro& the CC:s findin' that

petitioner co&&itted $sha&eful ille'al recruit&ent activities,$ practicall# a"solved

petitioner fro& the char'e of 'rave &isconduct.

This ar'u&ent deserves scant consideration.

Misconduct has "een defined as an intentional wron'doin' or deli"erate violation of a

rule of law or standard of "ehavior, especiall# "# a

'overn&ent official.*0As distin'uished fro& si&ple &isconduct, the ele&ents of

corruption, clear intent to violate the law or fla'rant disre'ard of esta"lished rule, &ust

"e &anifest in a char'e of 'rave &isconduct. *3Corruption, as an ele&ent of 'rave

&isconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciar# person who unlawfull# and

wron'full# uses his station or character to procure so&e "enefit for hi&self or for

another person, contrar# to dut# and the ri'hts of others.*An act need not "etanta&ount to a cri&e for it to "e considered as 'rave &isconduct as in fact, cri&es

involvin' &oral turpitude are treated as a separate 'round for dis&issal under the

Ad&inistrative Code.*

2n the case at "ar, petitioner cannot downpla# the char'es a'ainst her. 8hether the

char'es a'ainst petitioner satisf# the ele&ents of ille'al recruit&ent to &ae her

cri&inall# lia"le for such cri&e is not the issue at "ar. At the ver# least, petitioner was

found to have taen advanta'e of her position as an e&plo#ee of the B2 to falsel#

pro&ise, for pecuniar# 'ain, the facilitation of private respondent:s travel to )apan,

includin' the processin' of her passport, visa and other travel docu&ents. 8orse, she

was found to have refused to rei&"urse the a&ounts paid to her "# private respondent

even when the pro&ised passport, visa, and travel docu&ents did not &ateriali>e.

/ndou"tedl#, these acts involve $corruption, clear intent to violate the law or fla'rant

disre'ard of esta"lished rule.$ /nder ection 03


32/145

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-68288 ;+ 11, 1986

IOSAO G5HMAN, 5L4SSES 5RBIH!ONO, a%" ARIELRAMAC5LA, petitioners,vs.

NA!IONAL 5NIERSI!4 a%" OMINGO L. ;OCSON $% h$& caac$' a& Pr)&$")%'

o( Na'$o%a+ 5%$7)r&$',respondents.

NARASA, J.!

etitioners Diosdado u>&an, /l#sses /r"i>tondo and Ariel @a&acula, students of

respondent National /niversit#, have co&e to this Court to see relief fro& what the#

descri"e as their school:s $continued and persistent refusal to allow the& to enrol.$ 2n

their petition $for e+traordinar# le'al and e(uita"le re&edies with pra#er for preli&inar#

&andator# in7unction$ dated Au'ust 4, 19!, the# alle'e6

1= that respondent /niversit#:s avowed reason for its refusal to re-enroll the& in their

respective courses is $the latter:s participation in peaceful &ass actions within the

pre&ises of the /niversit#.

0= that this $attitude of the &an $he continued to lead or activel#

participate, contrar# to the spirit of the @esolution dated Nove&"er 03, 19!3 of this ...



33/145

Court tondo$ at the ti&e5

0= asserted that $neither the te+t nor the conte+t of the resolution 27ustifies the

conclusion that $petitioners: ri'ht to e+ercise their constitutional freedo&s$ had there"#

"een restricted or li&ited5 and

3= alle'ed that $the holdin' of activities


34/145

e+cept for cause as defined in ...


35/145

@esolution No. 1!1-9* dated Ma# 1, 199* of the Co&&ission on ?i'her Education

, the# went towards the direction of Da'ono# treet

"ecause Mr. ascual was supposed to pic up a "oo for his friend fro& another friend

who lives so&ewhere in the area.

As the# were alon' Da'ono# treet, and "efore the# could pass the Iolehi#o n' Malate

@estaurant, Mr. Cano first saw several 'u#s inside the restaurant. ?e said not to &ind

the& and 7ust eep on walin'. ?owever, the 'roup 'ot out of the restaurant, a&on'

the& respondents @everente, ee and ;aldes. Mr. Cano told Mr. ee6 $A$a" namin n!!ulo.$ But, respondent ee hit Mr. Cano without provocation. @espondent @everente

iced Mr. ascual and respondent ee also hit Mr. ascual. Mr. Cano and Mr. ere>

&ana'ed to run fro& the &aulin' and the# were chased "# respondent ee and two

others.

Mr. ascual was left "ehind. After respondent @everente first iced hi&, Mr. ascual

was 'an'ed-upon "# the rest. ?e was a"le to run, "ut the 'roup was a"le to catch up

with hi&. ?is shirt was torn and he was hit at the "ac of his head with a lead pipe.

@espondent ee who was chasin' Cano and ere>, then returned to Mr. ascual.

Mr. ascual identified respondents @everente and ee, as a&on' those who hit hi&.Althou'h Mr. ascual did not see respondent ;aldes hit hi&, he identified respondent

;alde> and

ascual proceeded to a friend:s house and waited for al&ost two hours, or at around

!6 in the evenin' "efore the# returned to the ca&pus to have their wounds treated.

Apparentl#, there were three cars roa&in' the vicinit#.*

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt6


36/145

The &aulin' incidents were a result of a fraternit# war. The victi&s, na&el#6 petitioner

)a&es Gap and Dennis ascual, Ericson Cano, and Michael ere>, are &e&"ers of the

$Do&ino u+ %raternit#,$ while the alle'ed assailants, private respondents Alvin A'uilar,

)a&es aul Bun'u"un', @ichard @everente and @o"erto ;aldes, )r. are &e&"ers of

$Tau a&&a hi %raternit#,$ a rival fraternit#.

The ne+t da#, March 3, 199, petitioner Gap lod'ed a co&plaint4with the Discipline

Board of D/ char'in' private respondents with $direct assault.$ i&ilar

co&plaints!were also filed "# Dennis ascual and Ericson Cano a'ainst Alvin ee and

private respondents ;aldes and @everente. Thus, cases entitled $De ?a *alle 'niversit$

and Colle!e of *t. 9enilde v. Alvin A!uilar 2A9%9*


37/145

+ + + +

%ourth, respondent A'uilar $sole&nl# swore that he left D/ at 6 p.&. for Ca&p

Cra&e for a &eetin' with so&e of the officers that we were preparin'.$14

n Ma# 3, 199, the D/-CB )oint Discipline Board issued a @esolution 1!findin'

private respondents 'uilt#. The# were &eted the supre&e penalt# of auto&atic

e+pulsion,19pursuant to C?ED rder No. .0The dispositive part of the resolution

reads6

8?E@E%@E, considerin' all the fore'oin', the Board finds respondents A;2N

A/2A@


38/145

The 8rit of reli&inar# 2n7unction shall tae effect upon petitioner and petitioners-in-

intervention postin' an in7unctive "ond in the a&ount of 1,. e+ecuted in favor of

respondent to the effect that petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention will pa# to

respondent all da&a'es that the latter &a# suffer "# reason of the in7unction if the Court

will finall# decide that petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention are not entitled thereto.

The &otion to dis&iss and the supple&ent thereto is denied for lac of &erit.

@espondents are directed to file their Answer to the etition not later than fifteen


39/145

O% ;+ 30, 1996, 'h) CA $&&)" $'& )&'$o%)" r)&o+'$o% *ra%'$%* 'h) #o'$o% 'o"$$&& o( r$7a') r)&o%")%' A*$+ar, disposin' thus6

T?E %@E2N CN2DE@ED, dis&issal of herein petition is here"# directed.

@DE@ED.

O% Oc'o:)r 1>, 1996, 'h) CA $&&)" $'& r)&o+'$o% ")%$%* )'$'$o%)r&D #o'$o% (or

r)co%&$")ra'$o%, as follows6

2t is o"vious to /s that C?ED @esolution No. 1!1-9* is i&&ediatel# e+ecutor# in

character, the pendenc# of a Motion for @econsideration notwithstandin'.

After considerin' the pposition and for lac of &erit, the Motion for @econsideration is

here"# denied.

@DE@ED.

n cto"er 0!, 199*, petitioners re(uested transfer of case records to the Depart&ent

of Education, Culture and ports ed their e+clusion fro& petitioner D/. ?owever, "ecause of the dis&issal of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_127980_2007.html#fnt53


40/145

the CA case, petitioner D/ is now faced with the spectacle of havin' two different

directives fro& the C?ED and the respondent )ud'e S C?ED orderin' the e+clusion of

private respondents Bun'u"un', @everente, and ;aldes, )r., and the )ud'e orderin'

petitioner D/ to allow the& to enroll and co&plete their de'ree courses until their

'raduation.

This is the reason 8e opt to decide the whole case on the &erits, "rushin' aside

technicalities, in order to settle the su"stantial issues involved. This Court has the power

to tae co'ni>ance of the petition at "ar due to co&pellin' reasons, and the nature and

i&portance of the issues raised warrant the i&&ediate e+ercise of ur

7urisdiction.This is in consonance with our case law now accorded near-reli'ious

reverence that rules of procedure are "ut tools desi'ned to facilitate the attain&ent of

7ustice, such that when its ri'id application tends to frustrate rather than pro&ote

su"stantial 7ustice, this Court has the dut# to suspend their operation.

I. It is the C"E, not EC#, which has the power of supervision and review over

disciplinary cases decided $y institutions of hi%her learnin%.

A%* CE, h$%"$ a%* ECS, a%* #a aa%*ar$ha% %* a*&:a:a a'a*r)a&o &a #*a ")&$&o%* a%"$&$+$%a %* #*a $%&'$'&o% %* #a& #a'aa& %a

a*-aara+.

etitioners posit that the 7urisdiction and dut# to review student e+pulsion cases, even

those involvin' students in secondar# and tertiar# levels, is vested in the DEC not in

the C?ED. 2n support of their stance, petitioners cite ections ,*1


41/145

C?ED, which is $"oth pu"lic and private institutions of hi'her education as well as

de'ree 'rantin' pro'ra&s in all post secondar# educational institutions, pu"lic and

private.$ That would "e a"surd.

2t is of pu"lic nowled'e that petitioner D/ is a private educational institution which

offers tertiar

# de'ree pro'ra&s. ?ence, it is under the C?ED authorit#.

!h$r", the polic# of @.A. No. 4400*1is not onlythe protection, fosterin' and pro&otionof the ri'ht of all citi>ens to afforda"le (ualit# education at all levels and the tain' of

appropriate steps to ensure that education shall "e accessi"le to all. The law

is li'ewiseconcerned with ensurin' and protectin' acade&ic freedo& and with

pro&otin' its e+ercise and o"servance for the continued intellectual 'rowth of students,

the advance&ent of learnin' and research, the develop&ent of responsi"le and

effective leadership, the education of hi'h-level and &iddle-level professionals, and the

enrich&ent of our historical and cultural herita'e.

2t is thus safe to assu&e that when Con'ress passed @.A. No. 4400, its &e&"ers were

aware that disciplinar# cases involvin' students on the tertiar# level would continue to

arise in the future, whic

consti law ii - first assignment

Documents