Legal Q&A Flashcards
CAN A NON-SITTING PRESIDENT INVOKE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT FOR ACTS COMMITTED DURING HIS TENURE?
In the case of Estrada vs. Desierto, the Supreme Court held that a non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suits even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure.
In the present case, it is clear that Mr. Robert is no longer a President of the Republic of the Philippines when he invoked presidential immunity against the charged of murder filed against him. Even though the alleged acts imputed to him were allegedly done while he was still a President, the same could not be a justification to exempt him from prosecution as when the time he was charged he is no longer a sitting President.
CAN A PERSON BE APPOINTED TO TWO DIFFERENT CABINET POSITIONS AT THE SAME TIME?
U t 1987 C, m o t c, a o, s n, u o p b t C, h a o o o e i t g d t t.
No, cannot validly hold two positions in the government at the same time.
Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution, members of the cabinet, among others, shall not, unless otherwie provided by the Constitution, hold any other office or employment in the government during their tenure.
IS A PREVIOUS BARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEEDING BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND A CORPORATION NECESSARY BEFORE A COURT CAN TAKE JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPLAINT?
U t L G C, a t i w a p b c i n r i w a c i f b o a a c, p o j e. O a i i a p t a b c e a a c o r.
Under Secton 48 of the Local Government Code, among the instances where a prior barangay conciliation is not required is when a complaint is filed by or against a corporation, partnership or juridical entity. Only an individual is a party to a barangay conciliation either as complainant or respondent.
IS A DONATION MADE TO A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXEMPT FROM DONOR’S TAX?
U t 1987 C, d o c u a, d a e f e p s b e f t.
Under the 1987 Constituion, donations or contributions used actually, directly or exclusively for educational purpose shall be exempt from tax.
WHAT LAW SHOULD GOVERN AN OFW’s EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: THE FOREIGN LAW OR THE PHILIPPINE LAW?
In the case of IPAMS vs. De Vera (2016), the Supreme Court held that in absence of any stipulation in a foreign employment contract, Philippine laws shall apply. This rule is rooted in the constitutional provision of Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution that the State shall afford full protection to labor, whether local or overseas.
In the present case, it is clear that nothing in Jane’s employment contract that stipulates what law should govern the same. Hence, Philippine laws shall apply by default. Under Philippine law, an employee cannot be terminated without just or authorize cause. Jane was terminated by her foreign employer without just cause. With such, Jane was deemed illegally terminated.
CAN MALL OWNERS OR OPERATORS BE COMPELLED TO OFFER FREE PARKING SPACES FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS?
On January 5, 2024, the Congress enacted R.A 1932 requiring mall owners and operators to provide free parking spaces within their vicinities. The law also provides for a penalty amounting to 2 million pesos for every corresponding violation thereof.
No.
Under Article 3, Section 9 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. Moreover, in the case of SOLGEN vs Ayala Land, the Supreme Court held that compelling establishments to provide free parking spaces amounts to unlawful encroachment of their private properties.
it is clear that R.A 1932 amounts to unlawful taking of the mall owners and operators’ private properties without just compensation. As private owners thereof, they have the sole prerogative on how to use or enjoy it provided the same is not contrary to law and public policy. Collecting reasonable parking fees for the maintenance of parking spaces is one of those prerogatives.
R.A 1932 is not valid.
CAN THE CITY GOVERNMENT VALIDLY PASS AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING PRIVATE CEMETERIES TO ALLOCATE PORTIONS OF THEIR MEMORIAL LANDS FOR THE BURIAL OF ITS DECEASED PAUPERS OR POOR RESIDENTS?
QUESTION:
Is the ordinance valid?
In the case of City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta (1983), the Supreme Court held that Municipal Corporations cannot in anyway take private properties for public use under the pretext of police power. Police power can be invoked only to destroy obnoxious properties detrimental to public safety. It is only through the exercise of the power of imminent domain wherein private properties can be taken for public purpose, but always with just compensation.
IS A PRIOR BARANGAY CONCILIATION NECESSARY BEFORE A CASE FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER BE FILED IN COURT WHEN THE PARTIES ARE RESIDENTS OF DIFFERENT CITIES?
Under the Local Government Code as reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Abagatman vs. Spouses Clarito (2017), in an unlawful detainer cases, a prior barangay conciliation agreement is necessary only when all the parties in the case are residents of the same barangay, or of different barangays but on the same city or municipality.
CASE ANALYSIS NO. 29
CAN THE CITY GOVERNMENT VALIDLY PASS AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING PRIVATE CEMETERIES TO ALLOCATE PORTIONS OF THEIR MEMORIAL LANDS FOR THE BURIAL OF ITS DECEASED PAUPERS OR POOR RESIDENTS?
CASE SCENARIO:
On January 5, 2024, the City Government of Davao, through its City Council, enacted an ordinance requiring private cemeteries within the city to allocate 10% of their memorial lands for the burial of its deceased poor residents, who will be determined by the City Social Welfare and Development Office. The City Council contended that the passing of such ordinance is within the exercise of its police power to promote the general welfare.
When the ordinance became effective after due publication, Lifeline Memorial, one of the private cemetery developers in the Metro, questioned the validity of the ordinance before the RTC of Davao City. It argued that the ordinance amounts to arbitrary confiscation of its private properties without just compensation.
QUESTION:
Is the ordinance valid?
No, the ordinance is not valid.
In the case of City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta (1983), the Supreme Court held that Municipal Corporations cannot in anyway take private properties for public use under the pretext of police power. Police power can be invoked only to destroy obnoxious properties detrimental to public safety. It is only through the exercise of the power of eminent domain wherein private properties can be taken for public purpose, but always with just compensation.
In the present case, it is clear the the purpose of the ordinance is to take private cemeteries for the burial of the deceased poor residents without just compensation to its owners. It amounts to undue deprivation of the owners’ beneficial use and enjoyment of their properties. Moreover, the invocation of the police power to take those properties is without basis.
The City Council should have initiated an expropriation proceedings, under the power of eminent domain, to take portions of private cemeteries for public use, and always with just compensation to its owners.
Therefore, the ordinance is not valid.
CASE ANALYSIS NO. 30
IS A PRIOR BARANGAY CONCILIATION NECESSARY BEFORE A CASE FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER BE FILED IN COURT WHEN THE PARTIES ARE RESIDENTS OF DIFFERENT CITIES?
CASE SCENARIO:
John, a resident of Tagum City, is the owner of the parcel of land located in Digos City. His cousin, Mark, who hails from Metro Manila asked him if he be allowed to build a temporary shelter on the property. John agreed.
Six months after, John decided to sell his property. He relayed to Mark his plan of selling it, hence he demanded from the latter to remove the structures built therein and vacate the same. Mark, however, refused to heed such demand.
John then filed a case for unlawful detainer against Mark before the MTC of Digos City. In his answer, Mark alleged that the case must not be given due course for failure to comply with a prior barangay conciliation, a condition precedent for filing an ejectment case.
Mark’s contention is unmeritorious.
Under the Local Government Code as reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Abagatman vs. Spouses Clarito (2017), in an unlawful detainer cases, a prior barangay conciliation agreement is necessary only when all the parties in the case are residents of the same barangay, or of different barangays but on the same city or municipality.
In the present case, it is clear that John and Mark are not residents of the same barangay. In fact they are residents of different cities. Hence, a prior barangay conciliation agreement is not required for filing an unlawful detainer case before the MTC of Digos City.
Therefore, Mark’s contention is unmeritorious.
