Lawyerly

GR No. 181704

2011-12-06

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We find that BOCEA's petition is replete with allegations of defects and anomalies in allocation, distribution and receipt of rewards. While BOCEA intimates that it intends to curb graft and corruption in the BOC in particular and in the government in general which is nothing but noble, these intentions do not actually pertain to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR, but rather in the faithful implementation thereof. R.A. No. 9335 itself does not tolerate these pernicious acts of graft and corruption.[48] As the Court is not a trier of facts, the investigation on the veracity of, and the proper action on these anomalies are in the hands of the Executive branch. Correlatively, the wisdom for the enactment of this law remains within the domain of the Legislative branch. We merely interpret the law as it is. The Court has no discretion to give statutes a meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language thereof.[49] Just like any other law, R.A. No. 9335 has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.[50] We have so declared in Abakada, and we now reiterate that R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR are constitutional.

GR No. 171101

2011-07-05

HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL

VELASCO JR., J.

From the area covered by TCT No. 310986 was carved out two (2) parcels, for which two (2) separate titles were issued in the name of LIPCO, specifically: (a) TCT No. 365800 [54] and (b) TCT No. 365801, [55] covering 180 and four hectares, respectively. TCT No. 310986 was, accordingly, partially canceled.

GR No. 177508

2009-08-07

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

is settled that every statute is presumed to be constitutional.[9] The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law. Those who petition the Court to declare a law unconstitutional must show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful, speculative or argumentative one; otherwise, the petition must fail.[10]

GR No. 167614

2009-03-24

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of the acts of its co-equals, such as the Congress, it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination;[47] (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party[48] and at the earliest opportunity;[49] and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case,[50] otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.[51]

GR No. 167011

2008-04-30

SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moreover, every statute has in its favor the presumption of validity.[47] To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.[48] We hold that petitioners failed to overcome the heavy presumption in favor of the law. Its constitutionality must be upheld in the absence of substantial grounds for overthrowing the same.

GR NO. 159796

2007-07-17

ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

NACHURA, J.

Finally, every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.[68] Indubitably, petitioners failed to overcome this presumption in favor of the EPIRA. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would warrant a pronouncement that Sec. 34 of the EPIRA and Rule 18 of its IRR are unconstitutional and void.

GR NO. 154837

2007-03-22

ANG BIAT HUAN SONS INDUSTRIES v. CA

CORONA, J.

When seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, caprice and arbitrariness must clearly be shown.[22] Petitioner should have cited how the CA and/or the SSS (through the SSC) abused their discretion in the questioned resolutions. Petitioner failed in this aspect.

GR NO. 159314

2006-06-26

EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA

QUISUMBING, J.

When the issue of unconstitutionality of a legislative act is raised, the Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present: (1) an actual and appropriate case and controversy; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case.[19]

GR No. 162783

2005-07-14

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. INC. v. MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In a special civil action of certiorari, the only question that may be raised is whether or not the respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[19] This was precisely what was raised by the private respondent in its petition before the Court of Appeals. The respondent asserted in the court a quo that the Secretary violated the law and jurisprudence, and exceeded her authority when she expressly prevented from returning to work those who were terminated due to alleged redundancy while the strike was ongoing.[20]

GR NO. 112526

2005-03-16

STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JUAN B. AMANTE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

(4) The constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[80] (Emphasis supplied) Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below,[81] in this case, the DAR Secretary. It must be pointed out that all controversies on the implementation of the CARP fall under the jurisdiction of the DAR, even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature.[82] The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, "if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal."[83] Records show that SRRDC raised such constitutional challenge only before this Court despite the fact that it had the opportunity to do so before the DAR Secretary. The DARAB correctly refused to deal on this issue as it is the DAR Secretary who, under the law, has the authority to determine the beneficiaries of the CARP. This Court will not entertain questions on the invalidity of a statute where that issue was not specifically raised, insisted upon, and adequately argued[84] in the DAR.

	GR No. 181704 2011-12-06	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We find that BOCEA's petition is replete with allegations of defects and anomalies in allocation, distribution and receipt of rewards. While BOCEA intimates that it intends to curb graft and corruption in the BOC in particular and in the government in general which is nothing but noble, these intentions do not actually pertain to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR, but rather in the faithful implementation thereof. R.A. No. 9335 itself does not tolerate these pernicious acts of graft and corruption.[48] As the Court is not a trier of facts, the investigation on the veracity of, and the proper action on these anomalies are in the hands of the Executive branch. Correlatively, the wisdom for the enactment of this law remains within the domain of the Legislative branch. We merely interpret the law as it is. The Court has no discretion to give statutes a meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language thereof.[49] Just like any other law, R.A. No. 9335 has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.[50] We have so declared in Abakada, and we now reiterate that R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR are constitutional.
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
From the area covered by TCT No. 310986 was carved out two (2) parcels, for which two (2) separate titles were issued in the name of LIPCO, specifically: (a) TCT No. 365800 [54] and (b) TCT No. 365801, [55] covering 180 and four hectares, respectively. TCT No. 310986 was, accordingly, partially canceled.
	GR No. 177508 2009-08-07	BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
is settled that every statute is presumed to be constitutional.[9] The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law. Those who petition the Court to declare a law unconstitutional must show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful, speculative or argumentative one; otherwise, the petition must fail.[10]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of the acts of its co-equals, such as the Congress, it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination;[47] (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party[48] and at the earliest opportunity;[49] and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case,[50] otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.[51]
	GR No. 167011 2008-04-30	SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, every statute has in its favor the presumption of validity.[47] To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.[48] We hold that petitioners failed to overcome the heavy presumption in favor of the law. Its constitutionality must be upheld in the absence of substantial grounds for overthrowing the same.
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
Finally, every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.[68] Indubitably, petitioners failed to overcome this presumption in favor of the EPIRA. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would warrant a pronouncement that Sec. 34 of the EPIRA and Rule 18 of its IRR are unconstitutional and void.
	GR NO. 154837 2007-03-22	ANG BIAT HUAN SONS INDUSTRIES v. CA CORONA, J.
When seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, caprice and arbitrariness must clearly be shown.[22] Petitioner should have cited how the CA and/or the SSS (through the SSC) abused their discretion in the questioned resolutions. Petitioner failed in this aspect.
	GR NO. 159314 2006-06-26	EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA QUISUMBING, J.
When the issue of unconstitutionality of a legislative act is raised, the Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present: (1) an actual and appropriate case and controversy; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case.[19]
	GR No. 162783 2005-07-14	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. INC. v. MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a special civil action of certiorari, the only question that may be raised is whether or not the respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[19] This was precisely what was raised by the private respondent in its petition before the Court of Appeals. The respondent asserted in the court a quo that the Secretary violated the law and jurisprudence, and exceeded her authority when she expressly prevented from returning to work those who were terminated due to alleged redundancy while the strike was ongoing.[20]
	GR NO. 112526 2005-03-16	STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JUAN B. AMANTE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(4) The constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[80] (Emphasis supplied) Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below,[81] in this case, the DAR Secretary. It must be pointed out that all controversies on the implementation of the CARP fall under the jurisdiction of the DAR, even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature.[82] The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, "if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal."[83] Records show that SRRDC raised such constitutional challenge only before this Court despite the fact that it had the opportunity to do so before the DAR Secretary. The DARAB correctly refused to deal on this issue as it is the DAR Secretary who, under the law, has the authority to determine the beneficiaries of the CARP. This Court will not entertain questions on the invalidity of a statute where that issue was not specifically raised, insisted upon, and adequately argued[84] in the DAR.

OFELIA V. ARCETA v. MA. CELESTINA C. MANGROBANG