Lawyerly

GR No. 210551

2015-06-30

JOSE J. FERRER v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA

PERALTA, J.

The provision, the constitutionality of which was sustained in Drilon v. Lim,[40] has been construed as mandatory[41] considering that –

GR No. 205728

2015-01-21

DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC

LEONEN, J.

Fourth, the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court. In Drilon v. Lim,[78] this court held that: . . . it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its discussion.[79] (Citation omitted)

GR No. 120051

2014-12-10

CITY OF MANILA v. ANGEL VALERA COLET

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Section 21(B) of the Manila Revenue Code, as amended, also enjoyed the presumption of constitutionality and validity. This presumption can only be overridden by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In Drilon v. Lim,[65] the Court already declared the Manila Revenue Code as valid given that the procedural requirements for the enactment of the same had been observed.

GR No. 213181

2014-08-19

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

MENDOZA, J.

As a meaningful guidepost, jurisprudence provides the definition and scope of supervision. It is the power of oversight, or the authority to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. It ensures that the laws and the rules governing the conduct of a government entity are observed and complied with. Supervising officials see to it that rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.[16]

GR No. 197676

2014-02-04

REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Since every law is presumed valid, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.[29]

GR No. 196231

2014-01-28

EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES

BRION, J.

Pending Gonzales' action on Mendoza, et al.'s case (on August 26, 2008), the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila City dismissed Kalaw's complaint against Mendoza, et al. for his failure to substantiate his allegations.[8] Similarly, on October 17, 2008, the PNP-IAS recommended the dismissal without prejudice of the administrative case against Mendoza, et al. for Kalaw's failure to prosecute.[9]

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency.[44] It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute,[45] "this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law."[46] The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.[47] We said in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA[48] that, "[p]lainly the Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue." Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads in part as follows: SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

When private respondent informed the management of Robinson's Bank that she intends to file charges against the bank manager, petitioner got angry with her for jeopardizing the manager's job. He then packed his things and told private respondent that he was leaving her for good. He even told private respondent's mother, who lives with them in the family home, that private respondent should just accept his extramarital affair since he is not cohabiting with his paramour and has not sired a child with her.[13]

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Private respondent is determined to separate from petitioner but she is afraid that he would take her children from her and deprive her of financial support. Petitioner had previously warned her that if she goes on a legal battle with him, she would not get a single centavo.[14]

GR No. 164987

2012-04-24

LAWYERS v. SECRETARY OF BUDGET

MENDOZA, J.

To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation because "to invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it."[27] This presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.[28]

GR No. 175457

2011-07-06

RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The power of control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.[33] An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself.[34]

GR No. 163583

2008-08-20

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In Drilon v. Lim,[27] it was held:We stress at the outset that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. Specifically, B.P. 129 vests in the regional trial courts jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, even as the accused in a criminal action has the right to question in his defense the constitutionality of a law he is charged with violating and of the proceedings taken against him, particularly as they contravene the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.

GR NO. 149719

2007-06-21

MOLDEX REALTY v. HOUSING

TINGA, J.

It must be emphasized that this Court does not have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions assailing the constitutionality of a law or an administrative regulation. In Drilon v. Lim,[12] it was clearly stated that the lower courts also have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality at the first instance, thus:We stress at the outset that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. x x x Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.[13] The general rule is that this Court shall exercise only appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality of a statute, treaty or regulation, except in circumstances where the Court believes that resolving the issue of constitutionality of a law or regulation at the first instance is of paramount importance and immediately affects the social, economic and moral well being of the people. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a question on the constitutionality of a regulation may be brought only to this Court.

GR No. 130775

2004-09-27

NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY v. VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES

TINGA, J,

The case of Drilon v. Lim[88] clearly defined the extent of supervisory power, thus: …The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. He has no judgment on this matter except to see that the rules are followed…[89] In Section 4, Article X of the Constitution applicable to the Liga ng mga Barangay? Otherwise put, is the Liga legally susceptible to DILG suspension?

GR No. 151908

2003-08-12

SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, the issuance by the NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated October 6, 2000 was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. In Drilon v. Lim,[28] it was held:We stress at the outset that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. Specifically, B.P. 129 vests in the regional trial courts jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, even as the accused in a criminal action has the right to question in his defense the constitutionality of a law he is charged with violating and of the proceedings taken against him, particularly as they contravene the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.[29] In their complaint before the Regional Trial Court, petitioners averred that the Circular contravened Civil Code provisions on sales and violated the constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law. These are within the competence of the trial judge. Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, the issues raised in the complaint do not entail highly technical matters. Rather, what is required of the judge who will resolve this issue is a basic familiarity with the workings of the cellular telephone service, including prepaid SIM and call cards - and this is judicially known to be within the knowledge of a good percentage of our population - and expertise in fundamental principles of civil law and the Constitution.

	GR No. 210551 2015-06-30	JOSE J. FERRER v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA PERALTA, J.
The provision, the constitutionality of which was sustained in Drilon v. Lim,[40] has been construed as mandatory[41] considering that –
	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Fourth, the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court. In Drilon v. Lim,[78] this court held that: . . . it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its discussion.[79] (Citation omitted)
	GR No. 120051 2014-12-10	CITY OF MANILA v. ANGEL VALERA COLET LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Section 21(B) of the Manila Revenue Code, as amended, also enjoyed the presumption of constitutionality and validity. This presumption can only be overridden by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In Drilon v. Lim,[65] the Court already declared the Manila Revenue Code as valid given that the procedural requirements for the enactment of the same had been observed.
	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
As a meaningful guidepost, jurisprudence provides the definition and scope of supervision. It is the power of oversight, or the authority to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. It ensures that the laws and the rules governing the conduct of a government entity are observed and complied with. Supervising officials see to it that rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.[16]
	GR No. 197676 2014-02-04	REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Since every law is presumed valid, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.[29]
	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
Pending Gonzales' action on Mendoza, et al.'s case (on August 26, 2008), the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila City dismissed Kalaw's complaint against Mendoza, et al. for his failure to substantiate his allegations.[8] Similarly, on October 17, 2008, the PNP-IAS recommended the dismissal without prejudice of the administrative case against Mendoza, et al. for Kalaw's failure to prosecute.[9]
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency.[44] It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute,[45] "this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law."[46] The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.[47] We said in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA[48] that, "[p]lainly the Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue." Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads in part as follows: SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
When private respondent informed the management of Robinson's Bank that she intends to file charges against the bank manager, petitioner got angry with her for jeopardizing the manager's job. He then packed his things and told private respondent that he was leaving her for good. He even told private respondent's mother, who lives with them in the family home, that private respondent should just accept his extramarital affair since he is not cohabiting with his paramour and has not sired a child with her.[13]
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Private respondent is determined to separate from petitioner but she is afraid that he would take her children from her and deprive her of financial support. Petitioner had previously warned her that if she goes on a legal battle with him, she would not get a single centavo.[14]
	GR No. 164987 2012-04-24	LAWYERS v. SECRETARY OF BUDGET MENDOZA, J.
To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation because "to invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it."[27] This presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.[28]
	GR No. 175457 2011-07-06	RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The power of control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.[33] An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself.[34]
	GR No. 163583 2008-08-20	BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Drilon v. Lim,[27] it was held:We stress at the outset that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. Specifically, B.P. 129 vests in the regional trial courts jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, even as the accused in a criminal action has the right to question in his defense the constitutionality of a law he is charged with violating and of the proceedings taken against him, particularly as they contravene the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
	GR NO. 149719 2007-06-21	MOLDEX REALTY v. HOUSING TINGA, J.
It must be emphasized that this Court does not have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions assailing the constitutionality of a law or an administrative regulation. In Drilon v. Lim,[12] it was clearly stated that the lower courts also have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality at the first instance, thus:We stress at the outset that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. x x x Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.[13] The general rule is that this Court shall exercise only appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality of a statute, treaty or regulation, except in circumstances where the Court believes that resolving the issue of constitutionality of a law or regulation at the first instance is of paramount importance and immediately affects the social, economic and moral well being of the people. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a question on the constitutionality of a regulation may be brought only to this Court.
	GR No. 130775 2004-09-27	NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY v. VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES TINGA, J,
The case of Drilon v. Lim[88] clearly defined the extent of supervisory power, thus: …The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. He has no judgment on this matter except to see that the rules are followed…[89] In Section 4, Article X of the Constitution applicable to the Liga ng mga Barangay? Otherwise put, is the Liga legally susceptible to DILG suspension?
	GR No. 151908 2003-08-12	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, the issuance by the NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated October 6, 2000 was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. In Drilon v. Lim,[28] it was held:We stress at the outset that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. Specifically, B.P. 129 vests in the regional trial courts jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, even as the accused in a criminal action has the right to question in his defense the constitutionality of a law he is charged with violating and of the proceedings taken against him, particularly as they contravene the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.[29] In their complaint before the Regional Trial Court, petitioners averred that the Circular contravened Civil Code provisions on sales and violated the constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law. These are within the competence of the trial judge. Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, the issues raised in the complaint do not entail highly technical matters. Rather, what is required of the judge who will resolve this issue is a basic familiarity with the workings of the cellular telephone service, including prepaid SIM and call cards - and this is judicially known to be within the knowledge of a good percentage of our population - and expertise in fundamental principles of civil law and the Constitution.

FRANKLIN M. DRILON v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM