G.R. No.

101538 June 23, 1992

AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III, represented by his father and legal
guardian, Augusto Benedicto Santos, petitioner,
vs.
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents
FACTS:
This case involves the Proper interpretation of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw
Convention, reading as follows:
Art. 28. (1) An action for damage must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, in the
territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the court of the domicile
of the carrier or of his principal place of business, or where he has a place of
business through which the contract has been made, or before the court at the place
of destination.
The petitioner is a minor and a resident of the Philippines. Private respondent
Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign corporation with principal office in
Minnesota, U.S.A. and licensed to do business and maintain a branch office in the
Philippines.
On October 21, 1986, the petitioner purchased from NOA a round-trip ticket in San
Francisco. U.S.A., for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and back.
The scheduled departure date from Tokyo was December 20, 1986. No date was
specified for his return to San Francisco
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention is constitutional; and
(2) Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case.

RULING:
Constitutional law; Requisites for judicial inquiry into constitutionality of a law or
treaty-It is well-settled that courts will assume jurisdiction over a constitutional
question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of a judicial inquiry into such
a question are first satisfied Thus, there must be an actual case or controversy
involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination, the
constitutional question must have been opportunity raised by the proper party, and
the resolution of the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision of the case
itself.
International Law; Doctrine of rebus sic stantibus does not operate automatically;
Formal government act of rejection necessary- But the more important consideration
is that the treaty has not been rejected by the Philippine government. The doctrine of

rebus sic stantibus does not operate automatically to render the treaty inoperative.
There is a necessity for a formal act of rejection, usually made by the head of State,
with a statement of the reasons why compliance with the treaty is no longer required.
The judicial system of that country in known for its sense of fairness and, generally,
its strict adherence to the rule of law.
ADELPHA FERNANDEZ, MARISSA DOMINGO, EUNICE OFRECIA, ROSELYN
MENDOZA, ARLENE CABALLERO, ALMIRA MIRANDA, and MARY CHRISTINE
VALENTON, petitioners,
vs.
HON. RUBEN TORRES, SECRETARY OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT and JOSE
SARMIENTO, ADMINISTRATOR, PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners Adelpha Fernandez, Marissa Domingo, Eunice Ofrecia, Roselyn
Mendoza, Arlene Caballero, Almira Miranda and Mary Christine Valenton
seek certiorari and prohibition to prohibit and restrain the Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") and the Administrator of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration ("POEA") from enforcing and
implementing Item No. 1 of DOLE Circular No. 01-91 dated 20 November 1991
entitled "Prescribing Additional Requirements, Conditions and Procedures for the
Deployment of Performing Artists."
Petitioners Adelpha Fernandez, Marissa Domingo, Eunice Ofrecia, Roselyn
Mendoza, Arlene Caballero, Almira Miranda and Mary Christine Valenton
seek certiorari and prohibition to prohibit and restrain the Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") and the Administrator of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration ("POEA") from enforcing and
implementing Item No. 1 of DOLE Circular No. 01-91 dated 20 November 1991
entitled "Prescribing Additional Requirements, Conditions and Procedures for the
Deployment of Performing Artists."

ISSUE:
Whether or not Item No 1 of DOLE Circular No.01-91 is constitutional.

RULING:
Item No. 1 of the assailed DOLE Circular provides as follows:
1. No Filipino entertainer shall be deployed outside the Philippines except for
legitimate performing artists consisting of musicians, singers and members of dance

troupes. In all cases, the performing artists must have a track record of legitimate
and reputable performance in the Philippines for at least one year. In no case shall
the performing artists be below 23 years old.
Findings:
The Court resolved to dismiss the petition for lack of justiciable
controversy.
Constitutional Law, Labor Law requirements of Judicial Inquiry on a constitutional
question= In action involving constitutional issues the firmly settled rule is that a
constitutional question will not be heard and resolved by the Courts unless the
judicial requirements of inquiry are met:
1. The existence of actual case or controversy;
2. The party raising the constitutional issue must have a personal and
substantial interest in the resolution thereof;
3. The controversy must be raised at the earliest reasonable opportunity ;
4. That the resolution of the constitutional issue must be indispensable for the
final determination of the controversy.
Item No. 1 of the challenged DOLE Circular does not establish an absolute and
comprehensive prohibition of deployment abroad of entertainers below twenty-three
(23) years of age.-[T]hat Item No. 1 of the challenged DOLE Circular does not
establish an absolute and comprehensive probihition of deployment abroad of
entertainers below twenty-three (23) years of age. Item No. 1 itself provides that the
Secretary of Labor and Employment may, for justifiable reasons, exempt from
performing artists from coverage hereof. The discretionary authority here asserted
by the DOLE Secretary