SANICO VS. COLIPANO GR NO. 209969 (2017)

FACTS: 

Colipano filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against Sanico and Castro. In her complaint, Colipano claimed that she and her daughter were paying passengers in the jeepney operated by Sanico, which was driven by Castro when the accident happened. Colipano's leg was badly injured and was eventually amputated. Sanico claimed that he paid for all the hospital and medical expenses of Colipano, and that Colipano eventually freely and voluntarily executed an Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim. However, Colipano testified that she did not understand the document she signed. She also did not understand the nature and extent of her waiver as the content of the document was not explained to her.

 

ISSUE: Whether the Affidavit of Desistance and Release of Claim is void.

 

RULING:

Yes. It is clear from the plaintiffs’ circumstances that she is not able to understand English, more so stipulations stated in the said Affidavit and Release. It is understandable that in her pressing need, the plaintiff may have been easily convinced to sign the document with the promise that she will be compensated for her injuries. For there to be a valid waiver, the following requisites are essential: (1) that the person making the waiver possesses the right, (2) that he has the capacity and power to dispose of the right, (3) that the waiver must be clear and unequivocal although it may be made expressly or impliedly, and (4) that the waiver is not contrary to law, public policy, public order, morals, good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. The third and fourth requirements are, however, lacking.

ARAULLO VS AQUINO GR NO. 209287 (2014)

FACTS:

When President Benigno Aquino III took office, his administration noticed the sluggish growth of the economy. The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the funding of government projects. DAP enables the Executive to realign funds from slow moving projects to priority projects instead of waiting for next year’s appropriation. Meanwhile, Sen. Estrada made an exposé claiming that he, and other Senators, received Php50M from the President as an incentive for voting in favor of the impeachment of then Chief Justice Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that the money was taken from the DAP but was disbursed upon the request of the Senators. This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out that the DAP does not only realign funds within the Executive. It turns out that some non-Executive projects were also funded; This prompted petitioners to file various petitions with the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the DAP.

 

ISSUE: Whether the unconstitutionality of DAP renders previous activity invalid.

 

RULING:

NO. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which recognizes the legal effects of an act prior to it being declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is applicable. The DAP has definitely helped stimulate the economy. It has funded numerous projects. If the Executive is ordered to reverse all actions under the DAP, then it may cause more harm than good. The DAP effects can no longer be undone. The beneficiaries of the DAP cannot be asked to return what they received especially so that they relied on the validity of the DAP. However, the Doctrine of Operative Fact may not be applicable to the authors, implementers, and proponents of the DAP if it is so found in the appropriate tribunals (civil, criminal, or administrative) that they have not acted in good faith.

DM CONSUNJI VS COURT OF APPEALS GR. NO. 137873 (2001)

FACTS:

Jose Juego, a construction worker of D. M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. His widow, Maria, filed in the RTC of Pasig a complaint for damages against the deceased’s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer raised, among other defenses, the widow’s prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund. RTC ruled in favor of Maria. 

ISSUE: Whether the Respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the civil code.

RULING:

Yes. The claimants may invoke either the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the provisions of the Civil Code, subject to the consequence that the choice of one remedy will exclude the other. Here, the CA held that private respondent’s case came under the exception because she was unaware of petitioner’s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The CA further held that not only was private respondent ignorant of the facts, but of her rights as well. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. It bears stressing that what negates waiver is lack of knowledge or a mistake of fact. There is also no showing that private respondent knew of the remedies available to her when the claim before the ECC was filed.

BANK OF AMERICA NT AND SA VS. AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION AND CA, GR. NO. 133876 (1999)

 FACTS:

 

Petitioner granted loans to 3 foreign corporations. As security, the latter mortgaged a property located in the Philippines owned by herein respondent ARC. ARC is a third-party mortgagor who pledged its own property in favor of the 3 debtor-foreign corporations. The debtors failed to pay. Thus, petitioner filed collection suits in foreign courts to enforce the loan. Subsequently, it filed a petition in the Sheriff to extra-judicially foreclose the said mortgage, which was granted. Private respondent filed an action before the RTC for the latter’s act of foreclosing extra-judicially the real estate mortgages despite the pendency of civil suits before foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent ARC and the decision was affirmed by CA. According to petitioner the governing law should be the English law which provides that the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of money.

 

ISSUE: Whether English law should be applied instead of Philippine Law

 

RULING:

 

No. In a long line of decisions, this Court adopted the well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is no judicial notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual presumption. Foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.

FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.) INC. VS METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, GR. NO. 115068 (1996)

FACTS: 

Petitioner mortgaged certain real estate in favor of respondent bank to secure the obligation in the total amount of P34,150,000.00. Due to financial constraints, petitioner failed to pay the loan upon maturity. Respondent initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings which foreclosed the real estate mortgage. Copies of the Notice of Extrajudicial Sale were sent to the opposing parties by registered mail. It was also posted at three conspicuous public places in Makati and was published in three issues of "The New Record." Petitioner claims that the New Record is not a newspaper of general circulation because it is published only once a week.

 

ISSUE: Whether the New Record is a newspaper of general circulation.

 

RULING:

Yes. To be a newspaper of general circulation, it is enough that "it is published for the dissemination of local news and general information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; that it is published at regular intervals." The newspaper need not have the largest circulation so long as it is of general circulation. Under P.D. 1079, for a newspaper to qualify, it is enough that it be a "newspaper or periodical which is authorized by law to publish, and which is regularly published for at least one (1) year before the date of publication" which requirement was satisfied by New Record.

NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA NG SITIO MASIGASIG, INC. VS. MILITARY SHRINE SERVICES GR. NO. 187587 (2013)

 FACTS:

President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208 amending Proclamation 423 which excludes certain area of Fort Bonifacio for a national shrine which will be known as Libingan ng mga Bayani which is under the administration of the respondents. Again, President Marcos issued Proclamation that excluded the barangays of Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal Village and a handwritten addendum which includes Western Bicutan for the disposition of the area. The proclamation was published in the Official Gazette without the handwritten addendum. Demolition of illegal structures was conducted which caused the petitioners to file before Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) for reclassification.  COSLAP ruled that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was not published thus the areas occupied by the petitioners are in question alienable and disposable.

ISSUE: Whether the handwritten addendum of President Marcos have the force and effect of law though it was not included in the publication

RULING:

No. The publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. Pursuant to Article 2 of the Civil Code, the requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided. Though Proclamation No. 2476 was published in an Official Gazette, the handwritten addendum of President Marcos declaring the Western Bicutan as alienable and disposable was not included. Therefore, without publication, the handwritten addendum of President Marcos never had any legal force and effect.

TANADA VS TUVERA 146 SCRA 446 (1986)

 FACTS:

Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition in the absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances in question.

 

ISSUE: Whether presidential issuances of general applicability are required to be published to have force and effect

 

RULING:

Yes. The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. Such publication is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.

LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION INC. VS RAMOS 421 SCRA 148 (JANUARY 27, 2004) GR 127882

FACTS:

President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 279 authorizing the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or foreign investors for contracts or agreements involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, which, upon appropriate recommendation of the Secretary, the President may execute with the foreign proponent. However, Sec. 8 of EO 279 provides that it shall take effect immediately after publication. Petitioners argued that the 15-day period under EO 200 is required.

ISSUE:

Whether E.O. No. 279 is an effective and a validly enacted statute.

 

RULING:

Yes. There is nothing in E.O. No. 200 that prevents a law from taking effect on a date other than even before the 15-day period after its publication. Where a law provides for its own date of effectivity, such date prevails over that prescribed by E.O. No. 200. Indeed, this is the very essence of the phrase "unless it is otherwise provided" in Section 1 thereof. Section1, E.O. No. 200, therefore, applies only when a statute does not provide for its own date of effectivity. What is mandatory under E.O. No. 200, and what due process requires is the publication of the law for without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat."

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4276152916727290"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>