This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-02-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power of the State particularly when their conduct affects the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, public health and welfare and public morals.[20] In any case, wh ere the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much wider. To pretend that licensing or accreditation requirements violate the due process clause is to ignore the settled practice, under the mantle of police power, of regulating entry to the practice of various trades or professions.[21] | |||||
|
2013-03-13 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or class privilege. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to which it is directed or by the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.[23] Equal protection permits of reasonable classification.[24] We have ruled that one class may be treated differently from another where the groupings are based on reasonable and real distinctions.[25] If classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all members of the class, and applies equally to present and future conditions, the classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee.[26] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under the Labor Code, the requirements for the lawful dismissal of an employee are two-fold, the substantive and the procedural aspects. Not only must the dismissal be for a just[21] or authorized cause,[22] the rudimentary requirements of due process - notice and hearing[23] - must, likewise, be observed before an employee may be dismissed. Without the concurrence of the two, the termination would, in the eyes of the law, be illegal,[24] for employment is a property right of which one cannot be deprived of without due process.[25] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.[33] It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is found in the Latin maxims salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use your property as not to injure the property of others). As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs, police power grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers.[34] We have held that the power to "regulate" means the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control, with due regard for the interests, first and foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of its patrons.[35] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The unfairness of Canon 36 compelled ABA to replace it in the 1969 ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.[33] The basic ethical principles in the Code of Professional Responsibility were supplemented by Disciplinary Rules that defined minimum rules of conduct to which the lawyer must adhere.[34] In the case of Canon 9, DR 9-101(b)[35] became the applicable supplementary norm. The drafting committee reformulated the canons into the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, and, in August of 1969, the ABA House of Delegates approved the Model Code.[36] | |||||