8. In some instances, arrested persons There can be no question that under ordinary That right is guaranteed in the
are released after the expiration of the circumstances, the police action of the nature described by following provisions of Article IV of the
period wherein they can be legally the petitioners would be illegal and blantantly violative of 1973 Constitution:
detained without any charge at all. In the express guarantees of the Bill of Rights. If the military
other instances, some arrested persons and the police must conduct concerted campaigns to flush
SEC. 3. The right of the people to be
are released without charge after a few out and catch criminal elements, such drives must be
secure in their persons, houses, papers
days of arbitrary detention. consistent with the constitutional and statutory rights of all
and effects against unreasonable
the people affected by such actions.
searches and seizures of whatever
9. The raiders almost always brandish nature and for any purpose shall not be
their weapons and point them at the There is, of course, nothing in the Constitution which violated, and no search warrant or
residents during these illegal denies the authority of the Chief Executive, invoked by the warrant of arrest shall issue except
operations. Solicitor General, to order police actions to stop unabated upon probable cause to be determined
criminality, rising lawlessness, and alarming communist by the judge, or such other responsible
activities. The Constitution grants to Government the officer as may be authorized by law,
10. Many have also reported incidents
power to seek and cripple subversive movements which after examination under oath or
of on-the-spotbeatings, maulings and
would bring down constituted authority and substitute a affirmation of the complainant and the
maltreatment.
regime where individual liberties are suppressed as a witnesses he may produce, and
matter of policy in the name of security of the State. particularly describing the place to be
11. Those who are detained for further However, all police actions are governed by the limitations searched, and the persons or things to
'verification' by the raiders are of the Bill of Rights. The Government cannot adopt the be seized.
subjected to mental and physical same reprehensible methods of authoritarian systems both
torture to extract confessions and of the right and of the left, the enlargement of whose
xxx xxx xxx
tactical information. (Rollo, pp. 2-4) spheres of influence it is trying hard to suppress. Our
democratic institutions may still be fragile but they are not
in the least bit strengthened through violations of the Only last year, the Court again issued this reminder in 20th
The public respondents stress two points in their Comment
constitutional protections which are their distinguishing Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals (164
which was also adopted as their Memorandum after the
features. SCRA 655; 660- 661 [1988]):
petition was given due course.
In Roan v. Gonzales (145 SCRA 687; 690-691 [1986]), the This constitutional right protects a
First, the respondents have legal authority to conduct
Court stated: citizen against wanton and
saturation drives. And second, they allege that the
unreasonable invasion of his privacy
accusations of the petitioners about a deliberate disregard
and liberty as to his person, papers and
for human rights are total lies. One of the most precious rights of the
effects. We have explained in the case
citizen in a free society is the right to
of People vs. Burgos (144 SCRA 1)
be left alone in the privacy of his own
Insofar as the legal basis for saturation drives is concerned, citing Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA
house. That right has ancient roots,
the respondents cite Article VII, Section 17 of the 345) why the right is so important:
dating back through the mists of history
Constitution which provides:
to the mighty English kings in their
fortresses of power. Even then, the It is deference to one's personality that
The President shall have control of all lowly subject had his own castle where lies at the core of this right, but it
the executive departments, bureaus he was monarch of all he surveyed. could be also looked upon as a
and offices. He shall ensure that the This was his humble cottage from which recognition of a constitutionally
laws be faithfully executed. (Emphasis he could bar his sovereign lord and all protected area, primarily one's home,
supplied ) the forces of the Crown. but not necessarily thereto confined.
(Cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 US 293
[1966]) What is sought to be guarded is
They also cite Section 18 of the same Article which That right has endured through the
a man's prerogative to choose who is
provides: ages albeit only in a few libertarian
allowed entry to his residence. In that
regimes. Their number, regrettably,
haven of refuge, his individuality can
continues to dwindle against the
The President shall be the Commander- assert itself not only in the choice of
onslaughts of authoritarianism. We are
in-Chief of all armed forces of the who shall be welcome but likewise in
among the fortunate few, able again to
Philippines and whenever it becomes the kind of objects he wants around
enjoy this right after the ordeal of the
necessary, he may call out such armed him. There the state, however
past despotism. We must cherish and
powerful, does not as such have access
except under the circumstances above which "offend even hardened sensibilities." In Breithaupt v. rights. Not only that, they were
noted, for in the traditional Abram (352 US 432, 1 L. Ed. 2nd 448 [1957]), the same intelligently and carefully planned
formulation, his house, however court validated the use of evidence, in this case blood months ahead of the actual operation.
humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed samples involuntarily taken from the petitioner, where They were executed in coordination
any unwarranted intrusion by there was nothing brutal or offensive in the taking. The with barangay officials who pleaded
government, which is called upon to Court stated: with their constituents to submit
refrain from any invasion of his themselves voluntarily for character
dwelling and to respect the privacies of and personal verification. Local and
Basically the distinction rests on the
his life. (Cf. Schmerber v. California, foreign correspondents, who had joined
fact that there is nothing 'brutal' or
384 US 757 [1966], Brennan J. and Boyd these operations, witnessed and
'offensive' in the taking of a sample of
v. United States, 11 6 630 [1886]). In recorded the events that transpired
blood when done, as in this case, under
the same vein, Landynski in his relative thereto. (After Operation
the protective eye of a physician. To be
authoritative work (Search and Seizure Reports: November 5, 1987, Annex 12;
sure, the driver here was unconscious
and the Supreme Court [1966]), could November 20, 1987, Annex 13;
when the blood was taken, but the
fitly characterize constitutional right as November 24, 1987, Annex 14). That is
absence of conscious consent, without
the embodiment of a spiritual concept: why in all the drives so far conducted,
more, does not necessarily render the
the belief that to value the privacy of the alleged victims who numbered
taking a violation of a constitutional
home and person and to afford its thousands had not themselves
light; and certainly the rest was
constitutional protection against the complained.
administered here would not be
long reach of government is no less
considered offensive by even the most
than to value human dignity, and that
delicate. Furthermore, due process is In her speech during turn-over rites on
his privacy must not be disturbed
not measured by the yardstick of January 26, 1987 at Camp Aguinaldo,
except in case of overriding social
personal reaction or the sphygmogram President Aquino branded all
need, and then only under stringent
of the most sensitive person, but by accusations of deliberate disregard for
procedural safeguards. (ibid, p. 74.)
that whole community sense of human rights as 'total lies'. Here are
'decency and fairness that has been excerpts from her strongest speech yet
The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rochin woven by common experience into the in support of the military:
v. California, (342 US 165; 96 L. Ed. 183 [1952]) fabric of acceptable conduct....
emphasizes clearly that police actions should not be
All accusations of a deliberate
characterized by methods that offend a sense of justice.
The individual's right to immunity from such invasion of his disregard for human rights have been
The court ruled:
body was considered as "far outweighed by the value of its shown- up to be total lies.
deterrent effect" on the evil sought to be avoided by the
Applying these general considerations police action.
...To our soldiers, let me say go out
to the circumstances of the present
and fight, fight with every assurance
case, we are compelled to conclude
It is clear, therefore, that the nature of the affirmative that I will stand by you through thick
that the proceedings by which this
relief hinges closely on the determination of the exact and thin to share the blame, defend
conviction was obtained do more than
facts surrounding a particular case. your actions, mourn the losses and
offend some fastidious squeamishness
enjoy with you the final victory that I
or private sentimentalism about
am certain will be ours.
combatting crime too energetically. The violations of human rights alleged by the petitioners
This is conduct that shocks the are serious. If an orderly procedure ascertains their truth,
conscience. Illegally breaking into the not only a writ of prohibition but criminal prosecutions You and I will see this through
privacy of the petitioner, the struggle would immediately issue as a matter of course. A persistent together.
to open his mouth and remove what pattern of wholesale and gross abuse of civil liberties, as
was there, the forcible extraction of his alleged in the petition, has no place in civilized society.
I've sworn to defend and uphold the
stomach's contents this course of
Constitution.
proceeding by agents of government to
On the other hand, according to the respondents, the
obtain evidence is bound to offend
statements made by the petitioners are a complete lie.
even hardened sensibilities. They are We have wasted enough time answering
methods too close to the rack and the their barkings for it is still a long way
screw to permit of constitutional The Solicitor General argues: to lasting peace. . . . The dangers and
differentiation. hardships to our men in the field are
great enough as it is without having
This a complete lie.
them distracted by tills worthless
It is significant that it is not the police action perse which
carping at their backs.
is impermissible and which should be prohibited. Rather, it
Just the contrary, they had been
is the procedure used or in the words of the court, methods
conducted with due regard to human
Our counter-insurgency policy remains Solicitor General contends, the allegation is a "complete the magnitude described in the petitions and admitted by
the same: economic development to lie." the respondents, being undertaken without some
pull out the roots-and military undisciplined soldiers and policemen committing certain
operations to slash the growth of the abuses. However, the remedy is not to stop all police
The latest attempt to stage a coup d'etat where several
insurgency. actions, including the essential and legitimate ones. We
thousand members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
see nothing wrong in police making their presence visibly
sought to overthrow the present Government introduces
felt in troubled areas. Police cannot respond to riots or
The answer to terror is force now. another aspect of the problem and illustrates quite clearly
violent demonstrations if they do not move in sufficient
why those directly affected by human rights violations
numbers. A show of force is sometimes necessary as long as
should be the ones to institute court actions and why
Only feats of arms can buy us the time the rights of people are protected and not violated. A
evidence of what actually transpired should first be
needed to make our economic and blanket prohibition such as that sought by the petitioners
developed before petitions are filed with this Court.
social initiatives bear fruit. . . Now that would limit all police actions to one on one confrontations
the extreme Right has been defeated, I where search warrants and warrants of arrests against
expect greater vigor in the prosecution Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the specific individuals are easily procured. Anarchy may reign
of the war against the communist police or military may go in force to the combat areas, if the military and the police decide to sit down in their
insurgency, even as we continue to enter affected residences or buildings, round up suspected offices because all concerted drives where a show of force
watch our backs against attacks from rebels and otherwise quell the mutiny or rebellion without is present are totally prohibited.
the Right. (Philippine Star, January 27, having to secure search warrants and without violating the
1988, p. 1, Annex 15; emphasis Bill of Rights. This is exactly what happened in the White
The remedy is not an original action for prohibition brought
supplied) Plains Subdivision and the commercial center of Makati
through a taxpayers' suit. Where not one victim complains
during the first week of December, 1989.
and not one violator is properly charged, the problem is
Viewed in the light of President not initially for the Supreme Court. It is basically one for
Aquino's observation on the matter, it The areal target zonings in this petition were intended to the executive departments and for trial courts. Well
can be said that petitioners flush out subversives and criminal elements particularly meaning citizens with only second hand knowledge of the
misrepresent as human rights violations because of the blatant assassinations of public officers and events cannot keep on indiscriminately tossing problems of
the military and police's zealous police officials by elements supposedly coddled by the the executive, the military, and the police to the Supreme
vigilance over the people's right to live communities where the "drives" were conducted. Court as if we are the repository of all remedies for all
in peace and safety. (Rollo, pp. 36-38) evils. The rules of constitutional litigation have been
evolved for an orderly procedure in the vindication of
It is clear from the pleadings of both petitioners and
rights. They should be followed. If our policy makers
Herein lies the problem of the Court. We can only guess the respondents, however, that there was no rebellion or
sustain the contention of the military and the police that
truth. Everything before us consists of allegations. criminal activity similar to that of the attempted coup d'
occasional saturation drives are essential to maintain the
According to the petitioners, more than 3,407 persons were etats. There appears to have been no impediment to
stability of government and to insure peace and order,
arrested in the saturation drives covered by the petition. securing search warrants or warrants of arrest before any
clear policy guidelines on the behavior of soldiers and
No estimates are given for the drives in Block 34, Dagat- houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep
policemen must not only be evolved, they should also be
dagatan, Navotas; Apelo Cruz Compound, Pasig; and Sun were arrested. There is no strong showing that the
enforced. A method of pinpointing human rights abuses and
Valley Drive near the Manila International Airport area. Not objectives sought to be attained by the "areal zoning" could
identifying violators is necessary.
one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal not be achieved even as the rights of squatter and low
and inhuman manner described by the petitioners appears income families are fully protected.
as a petitioner or has come before a trial court to present The problem is appropriate for the Commission on Human
the kind of evidence admissible in courts of justice. Rights. A high level conference should bring together the
Where a violation of human rights specifically guaranteed
Moreover, there must have been tens of thousands of heads of the Department of Justice, Department of
by the Constitution is involved, it is the duty of the court to
nearby residents who were inconvenienced in addition to National Defense and the operating heads of affected
stop the transgression and state where even the awesome
the several thousand allegedly arrested. None of those agencies and institutions to devise procedures for the
power of the state may not encroach upon the rights of the
arrested has apparently been charged and none of those prevention of abuses.
individual. It is the duty of the court to take remedial
affected has apparently complained.
action even in cases such as the present petition where the
petitioners do not complain that they were victims of the Under the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit, there is no
A particularly intriguing aspect of the Solicitor General's police actions, where no names of any of the thousands of erring soldier or policeman whom we can order prosecuted.
comments is the statement that local and foreign co- alleged victims are given, and where the prayer is a In the absence of clear facts ascertained through an orderly
respondents actually joined the saturation drives and general one to stop all police "saturation drives," as long as procedure, no permanent relief can be given at this time.
witnessed and recorded the events. In other words, the the Court is convinced that the event actually happened. Further investigation of the petitioners' charges and a hard
activities sought to be completely proscribed were in full look by administration officials at the policy implications of
view of media. The sight of hooded men allegedly being the prayed for blanket prohibition are also warranted.
The Court believes it highly probable that some violations
used to fingerpoint suspected subversives would have been
were actually committed. This is so inspite of the alleged
good television copy. If true, this was probably effected
pleas of barangay officials for the thousands of residents In the meantime and in the face of a prima facie showing
away from the ubiquitous eye of the TV cameras or, as the
"to submit themselves voluntarily for character and that some abuses were probably committed and could be
personal verification." We cannot imagine police actions of committed during future police actions, we have to
temporarily restrain the alleged banging on walls, the only in a well-ordered society can rights be properly The saturation drive is not unfamiliar to us. It is like the
kicking in of doors, the herding of half-naked men to enjoyed. Implicit in that theory, however, is the other "zona" of the Japanese Occupation. An area was surrounded
assembly areas for examination of tattoo marks, the imperative: that the highest function of authority is to by soldiers and all residents were flushed out of their
violation of residences even if these are humble shanties of insure liberty. houses and lined up, to be looked over by a person with a
squatters, and the other alleged acts which are shocking to bag over his head. This man pointed to suspected
the conscience. guerrillas, who were immediately arrested and eventually
While acknowledging that the military is conducting the
if not instantly executed.
saturation drives, the majority practically blinks them away
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby REMANDED to the on mere technicalities. First, there are no proper parties.
Regional Trial Courts of Manila, Malabon, and Pasay City Second, there is no proof. Therefore, the petition is To be sure, there are some variations now. The most
where the petitioners may present evidence supporting dismissed. important difference is that it is no longer 1943 and the
their allegations and where specific erring parties may be belligerent occupation is over. There is no more war. It is
pinpointed and prosecuted. now 1990, when we are supposed to be under a free
The approach is to me too much simplification. We do not
Republic and safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.
choose to see the woods for the trees. The brutal fact is
Copies of this decision are likewise forwarded to the staring us in the face but we look the other way in search
Commission on Human Rights, the Secretary of Justice, the of excuses. Article III, Section 2, clearly provides:
Secretary of National Defense, and the Commanding
General PC-INP for the drawing up and enforcement of
The majority says it cannot act against the drives because Sec. 2 The right of the people to be
clear guidelines to govern police actions intended to abate
no one directly affected has complained. Such silence, if I secure in their persons, houses, papers,
riots and civil disturbances, flush out criminal elements,
understand the ponencia correctly, has in effect purged the and effects
and subdue terrorist activities.
drives of all oppressiveness and washed them clean. against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for
In the meantime, the acts violative of human rights any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
(The reason for the silence is fear. These raids are
alleged by the petitioners as committed during the police search warrant or warrant of arrest
conducted not in the enclaves of the rich but in the
actions are ENJOINED until such time as permanent rules to shall issue except upon probable cause
deprived communities, where the residents have no power
govern such actions are promulgated. to be determined personally by the
or influence. The parties directly aggrieved are afraid.
judge after examination under oath or
They are the little people. They cannot protest lest they
affirmation of the complainant and the
SO ORDERED. provoke retaliation for their temerity. Their only hope is in
witnesses he may produce, and
this Court, and we should not deny them that hope.)
particularly describing the place to be
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Feliciano, searched and the persons or things to
Gancayco, Bidin, Cortes, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., The ruling that the petitioners are not proper parties is a be seized. (Emphasis supplied.)
concur. specious pretext for inaction. We have held that technical
objections may be brushed aside where there are
The provision is intended to protect the individual from
constitutional questions that must be met. There are many
Grio-Aquino, J., I join JJ. Cruz, Padilla and Sarmiento's official (and officious) intrusions, no matter how humble
decisions applying this doctrine. (Rodriguez v. Gella, 92
dissents. his abode and however lowly his station in life. Against the
Phil. 603; Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, 41 SCRA
mighty forces of the government, the person's house is his
702; Philconsa v. Jimenez, 65 SCRA 479; Edu v. Ericta, 35
castle, his inviolate refuge and exclusive domain where he
SCRA 481; Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 27 SCRA
is the monarch of all he surveys.
835; Lagunsad v. Court of Appeals; 154 SCRA 199; Demetria
v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208). Lozada was in fact an aberration.
Yet in the dead of night, armed soldiers may knock on one's
door and command him at gunpoint to come out so he and
I believe that where liberty is involved, every person is a
Separate Opinions his neighbors, who have also been rounded up, can all be
proper party even if he may not be directly injured. Each
placed on public examination, as in a slave market. This is
of us has a duty to protect liberty and that alone makes
followed by the arrest and detention of those suspected of
him a proper party. It is not only the owner of the burning
villainy, usually on the basis only of the tattoos on their
house who has the right to call the firemen. Every one has
bodies or the informer's accusing finger.
the right and responsibility to prevent the fire from
CRUZ, J., dissenting:
spreading even if he lives in the other block.
Where is the search warrant or the warrant of arrest
Mr. Justice Gutierrez and I are kindred spirits and usually required by the Bill of Rights? Where is the probable cause
The majority seems to be willing to just accept the
find ourselves together on the side of liberty. It saddens me that must be determined personally by the judge, and by
Solicitor General's assertion that the claimed abuses are
that in the case at bar he is on the side of authority. no other, to justify the warrant? Where is the examination
"complete lies" and leave it at that. But a blanket denial is
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
not enough. The evidence is there on media, in the papers
witnesses he may produce to establish the probable cause?
This is not to say that liberty and authority are and on radio and television, That kind of evidence cannot
Where is the particular description that must be stated in
irreconcilable enemies. The two must in fact co-exist, for be cavalierly dismissed as "complete lies."
the warrant, of the places to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized? And where, assuming all these may Where liberty is debased into a cruel illusion, all of us are sanctity of the home is pulverized by military and police
be dispensed with, is the admissible exception to the rule? degraded and diminished. Liberty is indivisible; it belongs action. Thus, while the checkpoint is a defensive device, on
to every one. We should realize that when the bell tolls the the part of government, the "areal target zoning" or
death of liberty for one of us, "it tolls for thee" and for all "saturation drive" is a direct assault against, an intrusion
Saturation drives are not among the accepted instances
of us. into individual rights and liberties.
when a search or an arrest may be made without warrant.
They come under the concept of the fishing expeditions
stigmatized by law and doctrine. At any rate, if the PADILLA, J., separate opinion: Respondents, fortunately, have branded petitioners'
majority is really introducing the "zona" as another allegations of such brutality, as total lies. It is indeed
exception to the rule, it must not equivocate. It must state difficult to even contemplate that such methods
This case is another classic instance of state power
that intention in forthright language and not in vague reminiscent of a "police state" can exist in a society built
colliding with individual rights. That the State, acting
generalizations that concede the wrong but deny the right. on a republican and constitutional system. Respondents
through the government and its forces, has the authority to
Must be given a chance to face their accusers and prove
suppress lawless violence in all its forms cannot be denied.
that they are indeed fabricating falsehoods. But the stakes
To justify the "zona" on the basis of the recent coup The exercise of that authority is justified when viewed
I submit, are too high for this Court, as the guardian of
attempt is, in my view, to becloud the issue. The "zonas" from the standpoint of the general welfare, because the
individual liberties, to avoid a judicial confrontation with
complained of happened before the failed coup and had State has the elementary and indispensable duty to insure a
the issue.
nothing whatsoever to do with that disturbance. There was peaceful life and existence for its citizens. A government
no "large scale mutiny or actual rebellion' when the that loses its capability to insure peace and order for its
saturation drives were conducted and there were no citizens loses the very right to remain in power. I vote, therefore, to refer this case (dispensing with normal
"combat areas" either in the places where the violations venue requirements) to the Executive Judge, RTC of
were committed. The failed coup cannot validate the Manila, for him
But, in the exercise of such authority, i.e., in the choice of
invalid "zonas' retroactively.
the means and methods to suppress lawless violence, the
right of the individual citizen to the dignity of his person 1. to receive the evidences of all the parties, in support
The ponencia says that "we cannot take judicial notice of and the sanctity of his home cannot and should not be and in refutation of the petitioners' allegations;
the facts and figures given by the petitioners regarding violated, unless there is, in a particular case, a clear and
these saturation drives conducted by the military and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a
2. to decide the case expeditiously on the bases of the
police authorities." Maybe so. But we can and should take compelling duty to suppress or abate.
evidence, subject to review by this Court;
judicial notice of the saturation drives themselves which
are not and cannot be denied by the government.
Petitioners' vivid description of the "areal target zoning" or
3. to report to this Court on action taken.
"saturation drives" allegedly conducted by police and
I urge my brethren to accept the fact that those drives military units in Metro Manila, obviously intended to ferret
are per se unconstitutional. I urge them to accept that out criminals or suspected criminals in certain cordoned SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:
even without proof of the hooded figure and the personal areas, while vigorously denied by respondents, deserves an
indignities and the loss and destruction of properties and effective and immediate response from this Court.
There is only one question here: Whether or not the police
the other excesses allegedly committed, the mere waging
actions (saturation drives) complained of constitute a valid
of the saturation drives alone is enough to make this Court
I submit that since this Court is not a trier of facts and this exercise of police power.
react with outraged concern.
case involves certainty of facts alleged by petitioners and
denied by respondents this case should be referred to a
The fact that on twelve occasions between March and
Confronted with this clear case of oppression, we should proper trial court where the petitioners can
November, 1987 the military conducted the saturation
not simply throw up our hands and proclaim our present evidence to support and prove the allegations they
drives in question is a fact open to no question. The
helplessness. I submit that this Court should instead make of such brutal and inhuman conduct on the part of
Solicitor General admits that they, the saturation drives,
declare categorically and emphatically that these military and police units.
had been done, except that they had been done "with due
saturation drives are violative of human rights and
regard to human rights." "Not only that," so he states:
individual liberty and so should be stopped immediately.
More than the military and police checkpoints sustained by
While they may be allowed in the actual theater of military
this Court as a general proposition during abnormal times,**
operations against the insurgents, the Court should also ... they were intelligently and carefully
and which involve the right of military and police forces to
make it clear that Metro Manila is not such a battleground. planned months ahead of the actual
check on vehicles and pedestrians passing through
operation. They were executed in
certain fixed points for the purpose of apprehending
coordination with barangay officials
The danger to our free institutions lies not only in those criminals and/or confiscating prohibited articles like
who pleaded with their constituents to
who openly defy the authority of the government and unlicensed firearms, the "areal target zoning" and
submit themselves voluntarily for
violate its laws. The greater menace is in those who, in the "saturation drives", as described in petitioners' allegations,
character and personal verification.
name of democracy, destroy the very things it stands for as are actual raids on private homes in selected areas, and
Local and foreign correspondents, who
in this case and so undermine democracy itself. are thus positive assaults against the individual person and
had joined these operations, witnessed,
his dignity. The individual is, as described, yanked out of
and reported the events that transpired
his home, without any arrest warrant, to face investigation
relative thereto. (After Operation
as to his connections with lawless elements. In short, the
Reports: November 5, 1987, Annex 12; him, in which case, action is justified and necessary. The CRUZ, J., dissenting:
November 20, 1987, Annex 13; majority would have the exception to be simply, the
November 24, 1987, Annex 14). That is general rule.
Mr. Justice Gutierrez and I are kindred spirits and usually
why in all the drives so far conducted,
find ourselves together on the side of liberty. It saddens me
the alleged victims who numbered
The fact of the matter is that we are not here confronted that in the case at bar he is on the side of authority.
thousands had not themselves
by police officers on the beat or prowl cars on patrol. What
complained.
we have and I suppose that everybody is agreed on it- are
This is not to say that liberty and authority are
lightning raids of homes, arbitrary confiscation of effects,
irreconcilable enemies. The two must in fact co-exist, for
The question, then, is purely one of law: Are the saturation and summary arrests of persons, the very acts proscribed
only in a well-ordered society can rights be properly
drives in question lawful and legitimate? It is also a by the Constitution. If this is a "show of force", it certainly
enjoyed. Implicit in that theory, however, is the other
question that is nothing novel: No, because the arrests has no place in a constitutional democracy.
imperative: that the highest function of authority is to
were not accompanied by a judicial warrant. 1
insure liberty.
I find allusions to the last aborted coup d'etat inapt. In that
Therefore, the fact that they had been carefully planned, case, our men in uniform had all the right to act amidst
While acknowledging that the military is conducting the
executed in coordination with Tondo's barangay officials, crimes being committed in flagrante. The instant case is
saturation drives, the majority practically blinks them away
and undertaken with due courtesy and politeness (which I quite different. There are no offenses being committed,
on mere technicalities. First, there are no proper parties.
doubt), will not validate them. The lack of a warrant makes but rather, police officers fishing for evidence of offenses
Second, there is no proof Therefore, the petition is
them, per se illegal. that may have been committed, As I said, in that event, a
dismissed.
court warrant is indispensable.
According to the majority, "the remedy is not to stop all
The approach is to me too much simplification. We do not
police actions, including the essential and legitimate That "the problem is not initially for the Supreme Court 5 is
choose to see the woods for the trees. The brutal fact is
ones . . . [w]e see nothing wrong in police making their to me, an abdication of judicial duty. As I indicated, the
staring us in the face but we look the other way in search
presence visibly felt in troubled areas . . . " 2 But the controversy is purely one of law the facts being undisputed.
of excuses.
petitioners have not come to court to "stop all police Law, needless to say, is the problem of the Supreme Court,
actions" but rather, the saturation drives, which are, not the Executive.
undoubtedly, beyond police power. The majority says it cannot act against the drives because
no one directly affected has complained. Such silence, if I
Worse, it is passing the buck. The petitioners, precisely,
understand the ponencia correctly, has in effect purged the
That "[a] show of force is sometimes necessary as long as have a grievance to raise, arising from abuses they pinpoint
drives of all oppressiveness and washed them clean.
the rights of people are protected and not violated 3 is a to the lower offices of the Executive (which presumably has
contradiction in terms. A "show of force" (by way of its imprimatur). To make it an executive problem, so I
saturation drives) is a violation of human rights because it hold, is to make the Executive judge and jury of its own (The reason for the silence is fear. These raids are
is not covered by a judicial warrant. acts, and hardly, a neutral arbiter. conducted not in the enclaves of the rich but in the
deprived communities, where the residents have no power
or influence. The parties directly aggrieved are afraid.
In all candor, I can not swallow what I find is a complete I am also taken aback by references to "[w]ell meaning
They are the little people. They cannot protest lest they
exaggeration of the issues: citizens with only second hand knowledge of the events ...
provoke retaliation for their temerity. Their only hope is in
keep[ing] on indiscriminately tossing problems -of the
this Court, and we should not deny them that hope.)
Executive, the military, and the police to the Supreme
...A show of force is sometimes
Court as if we are the repository of all remedies for all
necessary as long as the rights of
evils." 6 First, the facts are not "second-hand", they are The ruling that the petitioners are not proper parties is a
people are protected and not violated.
undisputed: Ther had been saturation drives. Second, the specious pretext for inaction. We have held that technical
A blanket prohibition such as that
petitioners have trooped to the highest court with a objections may be brushed aside where there are
sought by the petitioners would limit
legitimate grievance against the Executive (and military). constitutional questions that must be met. There are many
all police actions to one on one
decisions applying this doctrine. (Rodriguez v. Gella, 92
confrontations where search warrants
Phil. 603; Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, 41 SCRA
and warrants of arrests against specific The fact that the majority would "remand" the case to the
702; Philconsa v. Jimenez, 65 SCRA 479; Edu v. Ericta, 35
individuals are easily procured. Anarchy lower courts and the various echelons of the Executive for
SCRA 481; Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 27 SCRA
may reign if the military and the police investigation is to admit that walls have indeed been
835; Lagunsad v. Court of Appeals; 154 SCRA 199; Demetria
decide to sit down in their offices banged, doors kicked in, and half-naked men herded. I do
v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208). Lozada was in fact an aberration.
because all concerted drives where a not see therefore why we can not issue a writ of
show of force is present are totally prohibition as prayed for, in the midst of these facts.
prohibited. 4 I believe that where liberty is involved, every person is a
proper party even if he may not be directly injured. Each
of us has a duty to protect liberty and that alone makes
As a general rule, a peace officer can not act unless he is
him a proper party. It is not only the owner of the burning
possessed of the proper arrest or search warrant. The
Separate Opinions house who has the right to call the firemen. Every one has
exception is when a criminal offense is unfolding before
the right and responsibility to prevent the fire from villainy, usually on the basis only of the tattoos on their operations against the insurgents, the Court should also
spreading even if he lives in the other block. bodies or the informer's accusing finger. make it clear that Metro Manila is not such a battleground.
The majority seems to be willing to just accept the Where is the search warrant or the warrant of arrest The danger to our free institutions lies not only in those
Solicitor General's assertion that the claimed abuses are required by the Bill of Rights? Where is the probable cause who openly defy the authority of the government and
"complete lies" and leave it at that. But a blanket denial is that must be determined personally by the judge, and by violate its laws. The greater menace is in those who, in the
not enough. The evidence is there on media, in the papers no other, to justify the warrant? Where is the examination name of democracy, destroy the very things it stands for as
and on radio and television, That kind of evidence cannot under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the in this case and so undermine democracy itself.
be cavalierly dismissed as "complete lies." witnesses he may produce to establish the probable cause?
Where is the particular description that must be stated in
Where liberty is debased into a cruel illusion, all of us are
the warrant, of the places to be searched and the persons
The saturation drive is not unfamiliar to us. It is like the degraded and diminished. Liberty is indivisible; it belongs
or things to be seized? And where, assuming all these may
"zona" of the Japanese Occupation. An area was surrounded to every one. We should realize that when the bell tolls the
be dispensed with, is the admissible exception to the rule?
by soldiers and all residents were flushed out of their death of liberty for one of us, "it tolls for thee" and for all
houses and lined up, to be looked over by a person with a of us.
bag over his head. This man pointed to suspected Saturation drives are not among the accepted instances
guerrillas, who were immediately arrested and eventually when a search or an arrest may be made without warrant.
PADILLA, J., separate opinion:
if not instantly executed. They come under the concept of the fishing expeditions
stigmatized by law and doctrine. At any rate, if the
majority is really introducing the "zona' as another This case is another classic instance of state power
To be sure, there are some variations now. The most
exception to the rule, it must not equivocate. It must state colliding with individual rights. That the State, acting
important difference is that it is no longer 1943 and the
that intention in forthright language and not in vague through the government and its forces, has the authority to
belligerent occupation is over. There is no more war. It is
generalizations that concede the wrong but deny the right. suppress lawless violence in all its forms cannot be denied.
now 1990, when we are supposed to be under a free
The exercise of that authority is justified when viewed
Republic and safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.
from the standpoint of the general welfare, because the
To justify the "zona" on the basis of the recent coup
State has the elementary and indispensable duty to insure a
attempt is, in my view, to becloud the issue. The "zonas'
Article III, Section 2, clearly provides: peaceful life and existence for its citizens. A government
complained of happened before the failed coup and had
that loses its capability to insure peace and order for its
nothing whatsoever to do with that disturbance. There was
citizens loses the very right to remain in power.
Sec. 2 The right of the people to be no "large scale mutiny or actual rebellion' when the
secure in their persons, houses, papers, saturation drives were conducted and there were no
and effects "combat areas" either in the places where the violations But, in the exercise of such authority, i.e., in the choice of
against unreasonable searches and were committed. The failed coup cannot validate the the means and methods to suppress lawless violence, the
seizures of whatever nature and for invalid "zonas' retroactively. right of the individual citizen to the dignity of his person
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no and the sanctity of his home cannot and should not be
search warrant or warrant of arrest violated, unless there is, in a particular case, a clear and
The ponencia says that "we cannot take judicial notice of
shall issue except upon probable cause present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a
the facts and figures given by the petitioners regarding
to be determined personally by the compelling duty to suppress or abate.
these saturation drives conducted by the military and
judge after examination under oath or
police authorities." Maybe so. But we can and should take
affirmation of the complainant and the
judicial notice of the saturation drives themselves which Petitioners' vivid description of the "areal target zoning" or
witnesses he may produce, and
are not and cannot be denied by the government. "saturation drives" allegedly conducted by police and
particularly describing the place to be
military units in Metro Manila, obviously intended to ferret
searched and the persons or things to
out criminals or suspected criminals in certain cordoned
be seized. (Emphasis supplied.) I urge my brethren to accept the fact that those drives
areas, while vigorously denied by respondents, deserves an
are per se unconstitutional. I urge them to accept that
effective and immediate response from this Court.
even without proof of the hooded figure and the personal
The provision is intended to protect the individual from
indignities and the loss and destruction of properties and
official (and officious) intrusions, no matter how humble
the other excesses allegedly committed, the mere waging I submit that since this Court is not a trier of facts and this
his abode and however lowly his station in life. Against the
of the saturation drives alone is enough to make this Court case involves certainty of facts alleged by petitioners and
mighty forces of the government, the person's house is his
react with outraged concern. denied by respondents-this case should be referred to a
castle, his inviolate refuge and exclusive domain where he
proper trial court where the petitioners can
is the monarch of all he surveys.
present evidence to support and prove the allegations they
Confronted with this clear case of oppression, we should
make of such brutal and inhuman conduct on the part of
not simply throw up our hands and proclaim our
Yet in the dead of night, armed soldiers may knock on one's military and police units.
helplessness. I submit that this Court should instead
door and command him at gunpoint to come out so he and
declare categorically and emphatically that these
his neighbors, who have also been rounded up, can all be
saturation drives are violative of human rights and More than the military and police checkpoints sustained by
placed on public examination, as in a slave market. This is
individual liberty and so should be stopped immediately. this Court as a general proposition during abnormal times,**
followed by the arrest and detention of those suspected of
While they may be allowed in the actual theater of military and which involve the right of military and police forces to
check on vehicles and pedestrians passing through ... they were intelligently and carefully individuals are easily procured. Anarchy
certain fixed points for the purpose of apprehending planned months ahead of the actual may reign if the military and the police
criminals and/or confiscating prohibited articles like operation. They were executed in decide to sit down in their offices
unlicensed firearms, the "areal target zoning" and coordination with barangay officials because all concerted drives where a
"saturation drives", as described in petitioners' allegations, who pleaded with their constituents to show of force is present are totally
are actual raids on private homes in selected areas, and submit themselves voluntarily for prohibited. 4
are thus positive assaults against the individual person and character and personal verification.
his dignity. The individual is, as described, yanked out of Local and foreign correspondents, who
As a general rule, a peace officer can not act unless he is
his home, without any arrest warrant, to face investigation had joined these operations, witnessed,
possessed of the proper arrest or search warrant. The
as to his connections with lawless elements. In short, the and reported the events that transpired
exception is when a criminal offense is unfolding before
sanctity of the home is pulverized by military and police relative thereto. (After Operation
him, in which case, action is justified and necessary. The
action. Thus, while the checkpoint is a defensive device, on Reports: November 5, 1987, Annex 12;
majority would have the exception to be simply, the
the part of government, the "areal target zoning" or November 20, 1987, Annex 13;
general rule.
"saturation drive" is a direct assault against, an intrusion November 24, 1987, Annex 14). That is
into individual rights and liberties. why in all the drives so far conducted,
the alleged victims who numbered The fact of the matter is that we are not here confronted
thousands had not themselves by police officers on the beat or prowl cars on patrol. What
Respondents, fortunately, have branded petitioners'
complained. we have and I suppose that everybody is agreed on it- are
allegations of such brutality, as total lies. It is indeed
lightning raids of homes, arbitrary confiscation of effects,
difficult to even contemplate that such methods
and summary arrests of persons, the very acts proscribed
reminiscent of a "police state" can exist in a society built The question, then, is purely one of law: Are the saturation
by the Constitution. If this is a "show of force", it certainly
on a republican and constitutional system. Respondents drives in question lawful and legitimate? It is also a
has no place in a constitutional democracy.
Must be given a chance to face their accusers and prove question that is nothing novel: No, because the arrests
that they are indeed fabricating falsehoods. But the stakes were not accompanied by a judicial warrant. 1
I submit, are too high for this Court, as the guardian of I find allusions to the last aborted coup d'etat inapt. In that
individual liberties, to avoid a judicial confrontation with case, our men in uniform had all the right to act amidst
Therefore, the fact that they had been carefully planned,
the issue. crimes being committed in flagrante. The instant case is
executed in coordination with Tondo's barangay officials,
quite different. There are no offenses being committed,
and undertaken with due courtesy and politeness (which I
but rather, police officers fishing for evidence of offenses
I vote, therefore, to refer this case (dispensing with normal doubt), will not validate them. The lack of a warrant makes
that may have been committed, As I said, in that event, a
venue requirements) to the Executive Judge, RTC of them, per se illegal.
court warrant is indispensable.
Manila, for him-
According to the majority, "the remedy is not to stop all
That "the problem is not initially for the Supreme Court 5 is
1. to receive the evidences of all the parties, in support police actions, including the essential and legitimate
to me, an abdication of judicial duty. As I indicated, the
and in refutation of the petitioners' allegations; ones . . . [w]e see nothing wrong in police making their
controversy is purely one of law the facts being undisputed.
presence visibly felt in troubled areas . . . " 2 But the
Law, needless to say, is the problem of the Supreme Court,
petitioners have not come to court to "stop all police
2. to decide the case expeditiously on the bases of the not the Executive.
actions" but rather, the saturation drives, which are,
evidence, subject to review by this Court;
undoubtedly, beyond police power.
Worse, it is passing the buck. The petitioners, precisely,
3. to report to this Court on action taken. have a grievance to raise, arising from abuses they pinpoint
That "[a] show of force is sometimes necessary as long as
to the lower offices of the Executive (which presumably has
the rights of people are protected and not violated 3 is a
its imprimatur). To make it an executive problem, so I
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting: contradiction in terms. A "show of force" (by way of
hold, is to make the Executive judge and jury of its own
saturation drives) is a violation of human rights because it
acts, and hardly, a neutral arbiter.
is not covered by a judicial warrant.
There is only one question here: Whether or not the police
actions (saturation drives) complained of constitute a valid
I am also taken aback by references to "[w]ell meaning
exercise of police power. In all candor, I can not swallow what I find is a complete
citizens with only second hand knowledge of the events ...
exaggeration of the issues:
keep[ing] on indiscriminately tossing problems -of the
The fact that on twelve occasions between March and Executive, the military, and the police to the Supreme
November, 1987 the military conducted the saturation ...A show of force is sometimes Court as if we are the repository of all remedies for all
drives in question is a fact open to no question. The necessary as long as the rights of evils." 6 First, the facts are not "second-hand", they are
Solicitor General admits that they, the saturation drives, people are protected and not violated. undisputed: Ther had been saturation drives. Second, the
had been done, except that they had been done "with due A blanket prohibition such as that petitioners have trooped to the highest court with a
regard to human rights." "Not only that," so he states: sought by the petitioners would limit legitimate grievance against the Executive (and military).
all police actions to one on one
confrontations where search warrants
and warrants of arrests against specific
The fact that the majority would "remand" the case to the Capital Judicial Region, Branch XLIII, and SPS. BENJAMIN responsibility in paying the rental on
lower courts and the various echelons of the Executive for BANGAYAN and EMILIANA BANGAYAN, respondents. behalf of Ramon Francisco. Because
investigation is to admit that walls have indeed been Antonio Chua failed to remit the
banged, doors kicked in, and half-naked men herded. I do rental to the plaintiffs, since
Manuel B. Dulay for petitioners.
not see therefore why we can not issue a writ of September, 1979 and effective
prohibition as prayed for, in the midst of these facts. January, 1981 at the increased rate
Natalio M. Panganiban for private respondents. of Pl,500.00 a month, on February 3,
1982, plaintiffs wrote former owner
Footnotes
Antonio Chua to pay the unpaid
rentals then amounting to
Padilla, J. P35,000.00. Parenthetically on July
FERNAN, C.J.: 3, 1982, plaintiffs counsel sent a
letter of demand to the defendant
** Valmonte vs. Gen. de Villa, et al.,
Ramon Francisco by registered mail
G.R. No. 83988, 29 September 1989. Petitioners spouses Ramon Francisco and Cristina Manalo
but the latter was returned
seek a review of the decision dated August 29, 1986 of
unclaimed.
the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), now Court
Sarmiento, J.
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 06866, entitled "Ramon
Francisco, et al., Petitioners vs. Hon. Bernardo Pardo, Another letter dated January 24,
1 CONST., art III, sec. 21; People v. etc., et al., Respondents", denying due course to their 1983 was addressed to defendant
Burgos, No. 68955, September 4, 1986, petition, thereby affirming their ejectment from the Cristina Manalo but was also returned
144 SCRA 1. subject premises as decreed by both the Metropolitan unclaimed.
Trial Court (MTC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila.
2 Decision, 15; emphasis supplied. In fact, however, defendants were
paid up to the month of June, 1982
The facts as found by the RTC and adopted by the IAC and defendants stopped paying
3 Supra; emphasis supplied.
are as follows: rentals when they received a copy of
the letter of plaintiffs to the former
4 Supra. owner Antonio Chua. 1
The premises in question located at
1512 Antipolo St., Sta. Cruz, Manila,
5 Supra; emphasis supplied. consist of a lot and a two-storey On March 7, 1983, private respondents Benjamin and
building owned by Antonio Chua. Emiliana Bangayan filed before the MTC of Manila a
Defendant (herein petitioner) Ramon complaint for ejectment against the petitioners on the
6 Supra.
Francisco leased the ground floor and following grounds: a) non-payment of the agreed
a room in the second floor of the said monthly rental of P2,000.00; and b) subleasing of the
$ + GRSI Copyrightregno N94-027 building since 1961, (and) used (the premises in violation of the condition of the lease.
{bmr footnote.bmp}75909_2_5_90_footnotes>mainG.R. same) as an auto spare parts store
No. 75909 February 5, 1990 and residence. . . . (T)he latest rental
Petitioners denied the existence of the grounds for
RAMON FRANCISCO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT as of June, 1982 was Pl,500.00 duly
ejectment. They asserted that Antonio Chua, the
paid to Antonio Chua.
previous owner of the leased property assumed the
Republic of the Philippines responsibility of paying the rentals. They further stated
In 1978, the plaintiffs (herein private that there was no existing sublease but only a change of
respondents) acquired the ownership name of their auto parts business from Impala Auto
SUPREME COURT
of the premises by purchase from the Supply to Starlet Supply Center. They likewise denied
former owner Antonio Chua but it was knowledge of the transfer of ownership of the property
Manila agreed between the plaintiffs and the involved from Antonio Chua, the previous owner, to the
former owner that the tenant private respondents.
defendant Ramon Francisco would
THIRD DIVISION
continue to pay to the former owner
The MTC, after due hearing, rendered judgment
the monthly rental of P1,000.00 until
declaring petitioners to have defaulted in the payment
G.R. No. 75909 February 5, 1990 the end of 1978 and that thereafter
of the rent. The dispositive portion of the decision
the rentals shall accrue to the
reads:
plaintiffs. Nonetheless, starting
RAMON FRANCISCO and CRISTINA MANALO, petitioners,
January, 1979, plaintiffs received the
vs. Accordingly, judgment is hereby
monthly rentals not from defendants
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. BERNARDO P. but from the former owner Antonio rendered ordering the defendants
PARDO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Ramon Francisco and Cristina Manalo
Chua who agreed to assume
and all persons claiming rights under RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN In the case at bar, private respondents chose to allow
them to immediately vacate the HOLDING THAT PRIVATE the lease to continue. Despite the change of ownership
premises . . . and to restore RESPONDENTS MERELY STEPPED INTO then, the contract of lease subsisted. As aptly held by
possession thereof to plaintiffs; and THE SHOES OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER; the appellate court:
for the said defendants to pay jointly
and severally the herein plaintiffs the
III As buyers of the premises, private
amount of Pl,500.00 as monthly
respondents merely stepped into the
rentals of the premises from August
shoes of the previous owner. The
1982 and every month thereafter RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN
change of ownership did not affect
(less any amount they have paid to HOLDING THAT THE NON-PAYMENT OF
the contract of lease between the
the plaintiffs) until they have actually RENTALS FROM JULY, 1982 UP TO
petitioners and previous owner.
vacated the premises and the costs of JANUARY, 1983 WAS SUFFICIENT
Petitioners still had the same
the suit. 2 GROUND TO EJECT PETITIONERS;
obligations, including the payment of
rentals, under the contract without
On appeal to the RTC, the lower court's decision was IV the necessity of entering into another
affirmed with modification. The RTC pronounced: agreement with the new owners. 5
RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN
WHEREFORE, the court affirms the HOLDING THAT THE DEMAND Having shown the existence of the lease, all the other
decision subject of the appeal with ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY THE PRIVATE issues can be easily resolved.
modification so as to make the RESPONDENTS PRODUCED THE EFFECT
decision definite and certain because OF NOTIFICATION
No error was committed by the appellate court in ruling
in the appealed decision, the lower
that the failure of petitioners to pay the rentals from
court authorized deduction of any
V July, 1982 to January, 1983 was sufficient ground to
amount they have paid the plaintiffs
eject them. It is a basic tenet that if the lessor raises the
which being undetermined, makes
rent at the expiration of the lease, the tenant has to
the decision uncertain and void RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN
leave if he does not pay the new
(Cf. del Rosario vs. Villegas, 49 Phil. HOLDING THAT THE LOWER COURT
rental. 6
634). Defendants and all persons DID NOT EXERCISE ABUSE OF
claiming rights under them are DISCRETION IN NOT FIXING A LONGER
ordered to immediately vacate the PERIOD OF LEASE. 4 As held in the case of Vda. de Roxas vs. Court of
premises . . . and to restore Appeals, 63 SCRA 302, it is the owner's prerogative to fix
possession thereof to plaintiffs, to the rental for which he wishes to lease his property and
Petitioners allege that when private respondents finally
pay plaintiffs the sum of Pl,500.00 a the occupant has the option of accepting the rent as
disclosed to them in July, 1982 that they, private
month as rental for the premises from fixed or negotiating with the owner and in the event of
respondents, were the new owners and lessors of the
July, 1982 and every month failure to come to an agreement, to leave the property
leased premises, a confrontation occurred because of
thereafter until they actually vacate so as not to be liable for the rental fixed and demanded
the disagreement regarding the rate of rental. Since no
the premises, and costs. by the owner.
agreement as to the rate of rental was arrived at, no
contract of lease was created. This being the case,
SO ORDERED. 3 petitioners aver that they could not have violated the The rent in this case was being paid monthly. The lease
lease contract as there was no contract to speak of in was therefore on a month-to-month basis, which expires
the first place. at the end of each month and at which time, either party
As earlier intimated, the Court of Appeals also denied
may opt to terminate or continue the lease under the
due course to petitioners' petition for review. Hence,
same or under new terms and conditions.
this recourse, petitioners contending that the appellate Such contention is clearly fallacious. The property
court committed the following errors in its decision: subject of the controversy was sold by the former owner
Antonio Chua to private respondents while the lease was Private respondents having opted to increase the rate of
subsisting. Under Article 1676 of the New Civil Code, rentals, petitioners either have to accept the new rate
I
or leave the premises if no agreement is reached. But
they cannot excuse themselves from paying rentals
The purchaser of a piece of land
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN NOT altogether just because the negotiation as to such
which is under a lease that is not
HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO increase failed to materialize. For the fact is that they
recorded in the Registry of Property
CONTRACT OF LEASE BETWEEN THE still occupy the leased property. They derive benefit
may terminate the lease, save when
PARTIES; from such occupation. NEMO CUM ALTERIUS
there is a stipulation to the contrary
DETRIMENTO LOCUPLETARI PROTEST. No one shall
in the contract of sale, or when the
enrich himself at the expense of another.
II purchaser knows of the existence of
the lease.
Petitioners' argument that no demand to vacate was 6 46 Phil. 184. The petition for the probate of the will filed by Isabel
given them deserves scant consideration. As found by was opposed by her brothers, who averred that their
the Court of Appeals, private respondents' counsel sent mother was already senile at the time of the execution
7 F.S. Divinagracia Agro Commercial,
petitioners two (2) letters of demand, one addressed to of the will and did not fully comprehend its meaning.
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA
Ramon Francisco and the other to Cristina Manalo. These Moreover, some of the properties listed in the inventory
180.
letters were returned unclaimed despite the fact that of her estate belonged to them exclusively. 2
they were properly addressed to the petitioners and
despite notice given to the addressees of the letters. In 8 p. 29. Rollo
Meantime, Isabel was appointed special administratrix by
the case of Gaspay vs. Hon. Sangco, et al., L-27826,
the probate court. 3 Alfredo subsequently died, leaving
December 18, 1967, we held that therein petitioners'
$ + GRSI Copyrightregno N94-027 Vicente the lone oppositor. 4
claim that they were not served with notice is belied by
{bmr footnote.bmp}77867_2_6_90_footnotes>mainG.R.
proof that they had refused to receive the same. No
No. 77867 February 6, 1990
person is entitled to profit from his wrong act of On August 1, 1974, Vicente de la Puerta filed with the
ISABEL DE LA PUERTA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
commission or omission. Court of First Instance of Quezon a petition to adopt
Carmelita de la Puerta. After hearing, the petition was
Republic of the Philippines granted. 5 However, the decision was appealed by Isabel
As to the issue of whether the appellate court erred in
to the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the
not fixing a longer period of lease, we find no cogent
appeal, Vicente died, prompting her to move for the
reason to depart from the aforesaid court ruling. Article SUPREME COURT
dismissal of the case 6
1687 of the New Civil Code empowers the courts to fix
the period of lease. Such prerogative is addressed to the
Manila
court's sound judgment. 7 And such discretion was On November 20, 1981, Carmelita, having been allowed
certainly judiciously exercised in the case at bar for, to intervene in the probate proceedings, filed a motion
again, as observed by the appellate court: FIRST DIVISION for the payment to her of a monthly allowance as the
acknowledged natural child of Vicente de la Puerta. 7 At
the hearing on her motion, Carmelita presented
. . . Certainly, the default of
evidence to prove her claimed status to which Isabel was
petitioners in the payment of the
allowed to submit counter-evidence.
rentals could not have inspired the
G.R. No. 77867 February 6, 1990
court to extend any further their stay
in the premises as this would have On November 12,1982, the probate court granted the
imposed more unjustifiable burden on ISABEL DE LA PUERTA, petitioner, motion, declaring that it was satisfied from the evidence
the part of the owners. 8 vs. at hand that Carmelita was a natural child of Vicente de
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CARMELITA DE la Puerta and was entitled to the amounts claimed for
LA PUERTA, respondents. her support. The court added that "the evidence
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against
presented by the petitioner against it (was) too weak to
petitioners.
discredit the same. 8
Isabel de la Puerta for and in her own behalf.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the order of the lower court was affirmed by
Gilbert D. Camaligan for private respondent.
the respondent court, 9 which is now in turn being
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Corts, JJ., concur. challenged in this petition before us.
By the way, the doctor who issued Yes, but in the meanwhile, we give ATTY. SESBREO:
the medical certificate, is he a the benefit of the doubt for the
government physician? sickness of the accused in this case.
I would like to make it of record, that
In the sense of fairness and good
if only the medical certificate shows
judgment, we will give him the
ATTY. REYES: that the accused Silverio is confined
chance to recuperate at least, if he is
in a hospital, I could not have
really sick. It will be unchristian to
interposed my objection, but he is
Your Honor, please. He is a very order him to come here if he is really
not confined and he is a walking
prominent heart specialist at the sick. He might die on the way.
patient.
Philippine Heart Center. And there is
no reason, your Honor, to doubt his
xxx xxx xxx
professional competence. I would not COURT:
Millionaires, usually do not want to be ATTY. REYES: ATTY. SESBREO:
confined in a hospital. They dislike
that. They just want to stay in their
In Branch 9, your Honor, before May I suggest within one month, your
luxurious homes, and they can afford
Judge Gaviola. Honor, the arraignment be set within
to call any specialist they want. They
one month, to conform with the
can have the best services of any
rules.
specialist if they want to. So, I think ATTY. SESBREO:
that the accused in this case do the
same. I know the old man, the late COURT:
I think there might be some hitches,
Durano, He avoided staying in
because the accused there in that
hospitals if possible. He even sent his
case has not been arrested, your Make it one month, but due to the
personal physician to the United
Honor. exceptional predicament of the
States to fetch the best doctor when
accused, we will just reset this to
he had the coronary ailment, the
December 7, 1988 at 8:30 in the
heart attack. COURT:
morning, to give the accused the
chance.
The Court do not look with favor to Who?
the accused in this case, but because
ATTY. SESBREO:
according to the words of Atty. Reyes
ATTY. SESBREO:
that he is not taking responsibility of
advising his client to come for the In view of the suggestion of the
arraignment, so we will just give him Accused Silverio has not been Court, I may accede. (pp. 3-12, t.s.n.,
at least the chance to appear for the arrested in that case. October 18, 1988; pp. 74-83, Rollo;
arraignment. italics supplied.)
COURT:
So, when shall be the most The order of the Court dated October 18, 1988 reads as
reasonable time? Will it be next follows:
Oh, Atty. Reyes?
month? For purposes of arraignment.
On the suggestion of Atty. Edwin
ATTY. REYES:
ATTY. SESBREO: Reyes, counsel for the accused
Ricardo Silverio, to reset the
He is bonded, your Honor. arraignment and pre-trial to
I suggest within one (1) month, your
December 7, 1988 at 8:30 in the
Honor.
morning, considering that the accused
ATTY. SESBREO:
Silverio is also appearing in Branch 9
COURT: of this Court on said date and without
But the bond has expired. The 30-day objection on the part of Atty. Raul
period has expired and the bonding Sesbreo the court is constrained to
Yes, within one month. We will do
company was ordered to produce the defer the arraignment of the accused
that.
accused and to explain why the bond on said date and time. On suggestion
should not be confiscated. also of Atty. Sesbreo Atty. Reyes is
xxx xxx xxx hereby directed to handcarry
the subpoena for his client and also
COURT:
the bondsmen to appear before this
ATTY. REYES:
Court on December 7, 1988 at 8:30 in
The problem of the Court now is the morning. (p. 61, Rollo.)
May I suggest, your Honor, because whether on December 7 he can be
we have another case, an here. Well, inasmuch as the accused
Postponements are left to the sound discretion of the
arraignment on December 7, 1988, has another case in another sala on
court. The fact that the postponement exceeded one
May I suggest that date? December 7, we might as well set the
month from October 18, 1988 was not such a grave
arraignment here on said date, to
abuse of discretion as to call for disciplinary action
coincide with the date of the
COURT: against respondent Judge, it appearing that there was a
arraignment of the accused in Branch
good reason for resetting the arraignment of the accused
9, so that the accused will travel only
on December 7, 1988 because he (Silverio) would be
Here? in one instance.
appearing in another sala on that date. He would have to
make only one trip to Cebu for the two cases. The
postponement of less than two months was a reasonable beyond the comprehension of the honor as well as the majesty of the
period. Court. law. (pp. 23 & 23-A, Rollo.)
Complainant's allegation that respondent Judge Parenthetically, the offended party We have read the two manifestations/memoranda
neglected to resolve with reasonable dispatch made mentioned to place on (Annexes C & D) of Attorney Sesbreo and find nothing
complainant's pleadings, urging the immediate arrest and records his reaction to postpone the therein which can be described as "insolent,
arraignment of Silverio, Sr. is not supported by the arraignment, which was not reflected disrespectful and contemptuous" or "covertly
records of the case. Indeed, more than four (4) long in the transcript of the stenographic contumacious" or resembling a "veiled threat" against
years have elapsed since Criminal Case No. CU-10568 notes, especially his veiled threat, respondent Judge to warrant a warning that he may be
was filed in 1985, but that delay may not be laid at which is covertly contumacious when cited for contempt of court if he should repeat words of
respondent Judge's doorstep for he assumed office as he said in the two (2) the same import.
Presiding Judge of Branch 20 on June 6, 1988 only. manifestations/memoranda that the
However, respondent Judge erroneously believed that same are filed for: (1) for record
More than once in the past, we had occasion to admonish
the records of the case were still in the Court of Appeals. purposes; and (2) for reference use in
judges not to be onion-skinned when confronted by
The fact is that the records were returned by the Court the future in the appropriate
dissatisfied lawyers or litigants. Their power to punish
of Appeals to the lower court on January 9, 1987 yet. opportuned time. The Court is not
for contempt is not a bludgeon to be used for the
naive to understand that should this
purpose of exacting silent submission to their rulings and
case be adversed to him, he would
On August 15, 1988, or two months after Judge Garcia orders however questionable or unjust they may be. It
use this incident as a means to
took over from Judge Navarro, he issued a warrant for should be used only to protect and vindicate the dignity
vindicate or retaliate against the
the arrest of Silverio. He clearly acted with reasonable and authority of the court (Slade Perkins vs. Director of
Presiding Judge. It is already a matter
promptitude, but since the accused has not been Prisons, 58 Phil. 271). Courts should exercise their
of public knowledge that movant
arraigned up to this time, there is reason for Attorney power to punish for contempt on the preservative and
counsel is in the habit of filing cases
Sesbreo's complaint that the court has not acted with not on the vindictive principle, on the corrective and not
against any government official
determination and resourcefulness to foil the dilatory on the retaliatory idea of punishment (Villavicencio vs.
before whom the investigation or
maneuvers of the accused and his lawyers. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778; People vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265;
hearing are conducted whenever the
Gamboa vs. Teodoro, L-4893, May 13, 1952; People vs.
orders or decisions are adverse to
Rivera, L-364, May 26, 1952; In re Lozano, 54 Phil. 801).
The charge of dishonesty or serious misconduct against him.
Judge Garcia is not worth considering as it is
hypothetical, i.e., if respondent Judge stated in his WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Pedro Garcia is
Let it be known that it either
certificates of service for the months of May and/or admonished to abstain from intemperate and abrasive
pressure nor threat/influence of any
June, 1988 that no motions were pending resolution in language in his orders. He is further urged to be decisive
material considerations whatsoever
his sala. Complainant did not even attempt to present a and resourceful in implementing the processes and
can dissuade the court from properly
shred of evidence to prove this charge. orders of his court. He should dispose of his cases with
exercising and dispensing the
equal dispatch, whether the parties be menials or
administration of justice.
millionaires, so that the aggrieved party will have no
Complainant's charges of oppression and acts of
reason to complain that justice is only for the rich and
impropriety or intemperance refer to respondent Judge's
To think that one has the absolute influential and that the poor must await the rich man's
Order of November 29, 1988 which reads in part as
monopoly of legal knowledge and pleasure.
follows:
virtue is downright officious and a
pretension of the highest magnitude.
SO ORDERED.
A cursory reading of the above- They say, in heaven one can not find
mentioned facts will ineluctably show a saint who was never humble here
that the court had traversed on the on earth. Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
middle ground of the road in order to Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Corts,
satisfy both parties. As to why Atty. Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
xxx xxx xxx
Raul Sesbreo filed two (2)
manifestations/memoranda using
Fernan, C.J., took no part.
insolent, disrespectful and Without further digging into the
contemptuous language impressing intricacies and insolent words, which
the court that the latter opted in are self-evident and self-explanatory, $ + GRSI Copyrightregno N94-027
favor of the postponement of this the Court hereby warns him not to G.R. No. 77756 March 26, 1990
case, without his knowledge and repeat using words of the same PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENATO M. JAVIER
consent and that he was just import and meaning, otherwise the
compelled to accept because the Court will be constrained to cite him
Republic of the Philippines
Court, in effect, handled the for contempt of court in order to
postponement in arbitrary manner is protect and enforce its dignity and
SUPREME COURT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING violet powder to use as purchase
THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND money (pp. 2-3, tsn, Dec. 2, 1985).
REASONABLE DOUBT CONSIDERING
Manila
THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT
Sgt. Aladano and Brgy. Capt. De La
ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE
Cruz found appellant at around 4:45
THIRD DIVISION DOUBT. (Appellant's Brief, p. 1; Rollo,
o'clock that afternoon and
p.41)
approached him De La Cruz, who was
G.R. No. 77756 March 26, 1990 appellant's cousin, introduced Sgt.
Hence, this appeal presents the issue of whether or not Aladano to appellant. Sgt. Aladano
the quantum of evidence sufficient to render a judgment intimated his desire to buy
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt has been met. marijuana. For marijuana in two (1)
vs.
aluminum foils, Sgt. Aladano gave
RENATO MENDOZA JAVIER y TORRES, accused-appellant.
appellant the marked money.
The information filed on September 25,1985 on the basis
Thereafter, appellant left.
of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Narcotics
The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-
Command (NARCOM) headed by Police Lieutenant
appellee.
Leonardo Lavares reads: After some time, appellant returned.
He handed over to Sgt. Aladano
Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellant. something wrapped in a piece of
That on or about the 11th day of
paper. When Sgt. Aladano opened the
September 1985, in the municipality
package, he found the two small
of Las Pinas, Metro Manila, Philippines
packages of marijuana. Immediately,
and within the jurisdiction of this
he signaled his companions who were
Honorable Court, the above-named
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: more or less 7 to 10 meters away
accused did then and there wilfully,
from them (p. 7, tsn, January 6,
unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or
1986).
Defendant-appellant Renato Mendoza Javier y Torres deliver dried marijuana fruiting tops,
was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, a prohibited drug. (Rollo, p. 6)
Branch 133, in Criminal Case No. 19359 of violation of Appellant tried to escape, but Sgt.
Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as Aladano held him by his waist. The
The facts for the prosecution are stated by the Solicitor
amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act team swooped down on appellant.
General in his Brief for the Appellee as follows:
of 1972 and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life They introduced themselves as
imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. He now seeks a members of the NARCOM.
reversal of the judgment of conviction by the court a At about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon
quo assigning as errors, to wit: of September 11, 1985, the Narcotics
The team brought appellant and the
Command Unit (NARCOM) of the
marijuana to their headquarters.
Philippine Constabulary in Camp
I
Crame, Quezon City, received a
report that a certain Ray was selling Lt. Tita Advincula, a forensic chemist
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING marijuana to out-of-school youth in of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory,
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE Pulang-Lupa, Las Pias (p. 7, tsn, Jan. examined the contents of the package
PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES WHICH 6,1986). (Exhibit "H") seized from appellant.
WERE TAINTED WITH She reported that the contents were
INCONSISTENCIES AND indeed marijuana.
The NARCOM Commanding Officer, Lt.
IMPROBABILITIES.
Manuel Raval, ordered Lt. Lavares to
form a team for the 'buy-bust' Appellant himself was examined at
II operation and to arrest the suspect. the PC Crime Laboratory. In her
The team was composed of Lt. report (Exh. E ), Engr. Isidra de
Lavares as team leader, Sgt. Aladano Guzman stated that she found
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
buyer-poseur, Sgt. Lagos, Pfc. appellant positive of ultra-violet
COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE
Labucay and Pulang-Lupa, Las Pinas flourescent powder on both hands,
TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-
Brgy. Capt. De La Cruz who was the arms and face. (Rollo, pp. 55-58)
APPELLANT.
informant. The team immediately
proceeded to Tramo, Pulang-Lupa of
On the other hand, the defendant-appellant has a
III Las Pias. Upon arriving at the
different version of the facts as follows:
designated place, Lt. Lavares gave
Sgt. Aladano four 5 peso bills which
were previously dusted with ultra-
... [O]n September 11, 1985 between maltreated by the NARCOM agent and xxx xxx xxx
the hours of five and six in the his companion, when accused-
evening, defendant-appellant was appellant was brought to the room for
Findings:
having a snack in a store near their investigation.
house when all of the sudden, a group
of men, introducing themselves as Qualitative examination conducted on
Two days after he was arrested, he
NARCOM agents, arrested him for the above-mentioned specimen gave
was brought before a forensic chemist
allegedly selling marijuana fruit tops. POSITIVE result to the tests for
of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory who
After he was handcuffed, he saw a marijuana, a prohibited drug. (Exh. 1)
examined his hands for possible
red car with three men on board (Rollo, p. 21)
presence of ultra-violet powder. He
which suddenly stopped behind him.
narrated to said chemist how said
Two men alighted from the car and
powder got into his hands, but the The witnesses presented by the defense were the
approached him. One of them, whom
latter just laughed-off his claim. defendant-appellant himself and his mother in support of
he later identified as Lt. Lavares,
(Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. the claim that the former was plainly a victim of an
placed dried marijuana leaves on his
5-6) incriminatory machination perpetrated by the members
pocket, while a policeman from Las
of the alleged buy-bust operation team of Lt. Lavares.
Pias, a certain Pat. Antonio,
demanded money from him in At the arraignment, a plea of not guilty was entered by
exchange for his release. Since the defendant-appellant. On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Cpl. Antonio B.
accused-appellant failed to produce Antonio to disprove the extortion charges against him by
any money, he was then brought to the defendant-appellant who averred that the said police
During the trial, the witnesses for the prosecution
Camp Crame in Quezon City, officer demanded money in exchange for the latter's
included Lt. Leonardo Lavares, head of the buy-bust
release after his arrest.
operation, Sgt. Aladano the poseur-buyer, Chemical
At Camp Crame, he was brought to Engineer Isidra de Guzman of the PC Crime Laboratory
the Office of the NARCOM and led into who conducted the physical examination of the On sur-rebuttal, the defendant-appellant's father
a room where he was interrogated by defendant-appellant to determine the presence of ultra- Eleuterio Javier was called to the witness stand to
an investigator in civilian clothes. violet powder on his person and Lt. Tita Advincula, bolster the claim that Cpl. Antonio was guilty of
Inside said room was a table, on top Forensic Chemist of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory who extortion.
of which were marijuana leaves examined the specimen submitted to her, in connection
wrapped in an empty pack of Philip with this case containing two foils of dried leaves.
After trial, the defendant-appellant was adjudged guilty
Morris cigarettes (Exhs. "H" and "H-
beyond reasonable doubt as charged.
1"). The said marijuana leaves were
The report submitted by Isidra de Guzman shows the
not the same one (sic) which was
following findings:
placed on his pocket earlier that day. In resolving the issue of whether or not the degree of
proof required in criminal cases has been met, the
xxxxxxxxx credibility of witnesses who appeared in court becomes a
He was then forced to admit
foremost matter. On credibility, it is an oft-repeated rule
ownership of such marijuana leaves
that this Court will not disturb the findings of the trial
and was made to affix his signature Findings:
judge unless he has plainly overlooked certain facts of
on the wrapper. Although very much
substance and value that, if considered, might affect the
against his will, he nevertheless
Examination conducted under the result of the case (see People v. Jose Pirreras, G.R. No.
reluctantly affixed his signature on
ultra-violet radiation revealed the 63462, November 6, 1989 and People v. Eduardo Paco y
said wrapper because he was afraid
following results: Tamayo, G.R. No. 76893, February 27,1989)
that more punishment would be
inflicted upon his person if he will
refuse to do what was told of him. A. Renato Mendoza POSITIVE for The defendant-appellant alleges that the testimonies of
Before he was actually led inside said the presence of a bright yellow ultra- the prosecution witnesses are tainted with
room, he asked permission from his violet, flourescent powder on both inconsistencies and improbabilities, namely: (a) that in
escorts for him to use the comfort hands, arms and on his face. Sgt. Aladano's testimony, it took the accused twenty
room. While he was then relieving minutes to get the marijuana leaves after the deal to sell
himself, a NARCOM agent in civilian them to the poseur-buyer was made while according to
B. The above-mentioned money bills
clothes started kicking him. With said Lt. Lavares, almost an hour transpired before the
POSITIVE for the presence of a
NARCOM agent was another man who defendant-appellant came back and handed something to
bright yellow ultra-violet flourescent
held his hands and rubbed powder on Sgt. Aladano; (b) that the buy-bust operation team of Lt.
powder. (Exh. E ) (Rollo, p. 21)
it. Accused-appellant attempted to Lavares was planned, executed and successfully carried
wash-off said powder but was out within a matter of two hours without any preliminary
prevented from doing so by the two The pertinent portion of the report filed by Lt. Tita surveillance on the defendant-appellant; and (c) that if
men. It was then after he was Advincula reads: the defendant-appellant was indeed a drug pusher, the
fact that he trusted his cousin, Barangay Captain Dela it is a weak defense that is easy to concoct but difficult A. Yes sir.
Cruz, the alleged informer as to the poseur-buyer's to prove (See People v. Sergio Nabinat y Asag, G.R. No.
identity would mean that the latter had acted as 84392, February 7, 1990). It is difficult to believe that
Q. As a matter of
"middleman" in previous transactions otherwise the the NARCOM agents who did not know the appellant and
fact, not knowing
defendant-appellant would not allow the said informer to whom the appellant did not know would suddenly
anyone of them,
be involved in his illegal activity. pounce upon a completely unknown and innocent person
you did not have
taking a merienda and not only plant marijuana in his
any
clothes but also forcibly rub ultraviolet powder on his
We find the above allegation devoid of merit. The misunderstanding
hands while he was relieving himself in the toilet at
inconsistencies pointed out by the defendant-appellant with anyone of
Camp Crame. During the cross-examination of the
are too minor to affect the credibility of the prosecution them prior to
defendant-appellant, he made the following
witnesses who are law enforcers presumed to have September 11,
declarations:
regularly performed their duties in the absence of 1985, is it not?
convincing proof to the contrary. (People v. Lamberto
Borja y Martinez, G.R. No. 71838, February 26, 1990, xxx xxx xxx
A. I do not have
citing People v. Patog, 144 SCRA 429 [1986]; People v.
sir.
Said Sariol y Muhamading, G.R. No. 83809, June 22,
FISCAL:
1989 citing People v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 533 [1988];
People v. Boholst 152 SCRA 263 [1987] citing People v. Q. Who was the
Gamayon, 121 SCRA 642 [1983]; People v. Campana, 124 xxx xxx xxx one who placed
SCRA 271 [1983]; People v. Rosas, 149 SCRA 464 [1987]) this powder in
With respect to the alleged improbabilities, they are your hands?
Q. You were
grounded on fanciful conjectures and speculations which
present when Sgt.
cannot topple the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Aladano testified A. A man, but I
Thus, we are constrained to give credence to the
here in Court and think he was not a
witnesses of the prosecution who had proven beyond
pointed to you? Narcom agent.
reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime of
which defendant- appellant was charged. After all,
"proof beyond reasonable doubt" is defined under Rule A. Yes sir. Q. According to
133, section 2 of the Rules of Court as follows: you, Lt. Lavares
this marijuana in
COURT: Was he
your pocket
... Proof beyond a reasonable doubt the one who
against you and
does not mean such a degree of proof planted the
did you file any
as, excluding possibility of error, marijuana?
case against this
produces absolute certainty. Moral
Lt. Lavares?
certainty only is required, or that
A. No Your Honor,
degree of proof which produces
it was Lt. Lavares.
conviction in an unprejudiced and A. I cannot file any
mind. case or complaint
FISCAL: because I was
handcuffed and
In the instant case, there is clear proof that the
they brought me
defendant-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, Q. Prior to
to Camp Crame.
i.e., in the very act of selling and delivering dried September 11,
marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug under Article 1985, did you
I, section 2, subsections (e) and (i) of the Dangerous know already Sgt. Q. You did not file
Drugs Act, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 179. Salvador Aladano? any complaint
Prosecution witnesses Sgt. Aladano and Lt. Lavares against the man
competently narrated the pertinent details attendant to who put this
A. No sir.
the crime of which the trial court convicted the powder which
defendant-appellant who was positively identified as the according to you is
perpetrator by the said witnesses. Furthermore, Q. In the same against your will
corroborative evidence was offered by the prosecution manner that you
through the testimonies of the chemical engineer and do not know also
A. No sir, because
forensic chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory. Lt. Lavares prior
I was brought
to September 11,
upstairs and I was
1985?
The defense of having been framed-up was not instructed to wait
satisfactorily proved by convincing evidence. Like alibi, for my parents.
Q. Were you not FISCAL: We thought that
presented by the would be the
arresting officers proper subject of
Objection. No
to the this examination.
basis because
investigators in
according to the
Camp Crame?
witness, while he FISCAL:
admitted he met
A. I was presented this Antonio and
This is a direct
sir. conversation was
testimony of the
pondered on
witness and proper
asking why he was
Q. They wanted to basis should be
arresting his son.
get your statement laid.
but you refused to
give ant ATTY. GARIN:
COURT:
statement?
The basis is the
Sustain. Reform.
COURT: testimony of this
witness Antonio.
Now I am asking to ATTY. GARIN:
Q. Why did you
confirm or deny
refuse to give your
the same.
statement? Q. Were you able
to talk to your son
FISCAL: while he was in
A. Because I have
prison?
not committed any
offense. I was just But basis should be
taking my snack or laid. A. No sir.
'meryenda'
(Original Records,
ATTY. GARIN: Q. Your wife?
pp. 123-124).
7 Ibid., 62.
Whether the contract of lease is for a definite or On September 24, 1975, petitioner sent a letter to Republic Act No. 6359 defines
indefinite period of time and the applicability of the private respondent that effective November 1, 1975 the 'dwelling unit as follows:
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 20 and Batas new rental for the two apartments will be P500.00 per
Pambansa Bilang 25 are the issues in this case. door or P1,000.00 for the two doors, likewise payable in
"A dwelling unit
advance within the first ten (10) days of the calendar
refers to a house
month, with the request that petitioner be informed of
The facts are undisputed. and lot used for
private respondent's decision as to the new rate not
residential
later than October 25, 1976 so that it may be guided
purposes and shall
In March 1964 and December 1964 petitioner and private accordingly. 3 Instead private respondent complained to
include not only
respondent Rev. Father Jose Torralba Sy, entered into the Department of Public Information, Malacanang,
buildings, dwelling
separate contracts of lease over two apartments located Manila. In the confrontation between the parties, the
places, except
at 913-E and 193-F Josefina Street, Sampaloc, Manila, Presidential Complaint and Action Committee found that
motels, hotels, or
with the common provision covering its duration as there was no violation of P.D. No. 20 as the subject
hotel rooms; but
follows: premises are being principally as a Buddhist Temple and
also those used for
therefore are not covered. Private respondent then sent
home industries or
a letter-complaint thru counsel dated November 13,
To hold the same for one month from retail store if the
1975 to them Asst. Executive Secretary Ronaldo E.
the (15th day of March, 1964 for Apt. owner thereof and
Zamora who in response issued Opinion No. 480, Series
No. 913-E and lst day of January, his family actually
of 1975 dated November 20, 1975 signed by Deputy
1964 for Apt. No. 913- F) and so on live therein and
Executive Secretary Roberto V. Reyes. 4 Therein it was
from month to month at a rent of use it principally
held that the increase in rental demanded was in
TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00), for residential
violation of P.D. No. 20 and that as 1/4 of the two-door
Philippine Currency, per month, purpose; Provided
apartments is being used likewise as a chapel incidental
payable in advance on the first TEN , That in case of a
to the calling of the private respondent as a monk it
(10) days of each calendar month, retail store the
cannot be called as a commercial or public establishment
until the lease shall terminate, which capital thereof
or as a place for the exercise of one's profession because
termination shall be determined by does not exceed
the same is not for profit.
either party giving FIVE (5) days five thousand
notice in writing. 1 pesos." (Emphasis
However, on November 16, 1976, in response to the supplied.)
letter of petitioner, Secretary Ronaldo E. Zamora, as
It was further stipulated in the two contracts that "in
Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, issued Opinion
case the lessee shall continuously withhold possession of Thus if the leased apartment units are
No. 629, Series of 1976, as follows:
the apartments after he or she has been properly used principally for purposes of
notified of the termination of his or her right to occupy religious worship, the incidental fact
the same, the lessor shall be entitled to collect P400.00 While it may be that Father Sy and/or his family live
every month or fraction thereof, as reasonable conceded arguendo that for being therein will not include them in that
compensation for the use of the place and as damages." used as a place for worship, the class of tenants favored by the
premises may not necessarily be emergency law on housing (Morales
considered as commercial for vs. Zamora, 31 Phil. 204). In such
Private respondent removed the portion separating the
purposes of ruling out the case, the matter of regulating the
two apartments and converted the same principally for
applicability of Presidential Decree monthly rentals become conventional
use as a Buddhist chapel.
No. 20 dated October 12, 1972, between him and the URC. This
which freezes rates of rentals of should not be understood to mean,
On August 1, 1970, petitioner leased to private dwelling unit at their present levels however, that the latter is free to
respondent the apartment at 937-E Josefina Street, when the same do not exceed demand an arbitrary amount. Equity
Sampaloc, Manila, effective August 1, 1970 for the P300.00 per month, it is equally true and justice require that both parties
monthly rental of P300.00, 2 payable in advance within that the same will, as it does, not fall observe reasonable terms and
the first ten (10) days of the month for his use as within the protective mantle of the conditions in bringing about a mutual
residence only. It was also stipulated in said contract decree. covenant.
that "in case the lessee shall continuously withhold
possession of the apartments after he/she has been
It is to be noted that the decreed Under the circumstances, therefore,
notified of the termination of his/her right to occupy the
prohibition against rental increase this Office, on equitable
same, the lessor shall be entitled to collect P500.00
applies only to dwelling units or lots considerations and for reasons of
every month or fraction thereof, as reasonable
used for residential purposes, the public policy, believes that rental
compensation for the use of the place and as damages.
monthly rent of which does not increases should be raised to
exceed P300.00. On this point reasonable levels only. 5
On January 3, 1977, petitioner through counsel The only difference between Rantael and the present WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of
furnished private respondent through counsel a xerox case is that in the former the parties may terminate the the Court of Appeals dated October 7, 1982 and its
copy of said Opinion No. 629, Series of 1976 and agreement upon 30 days notice while in this case, the Resolution dated November 17, 1982 are hereby
demanded that the private respondent vacate and agreement is that the termination by either party may reversed and set aside and another judgment is hereby
surrender the two premises within five (5) days from be upon 5 days notice. Such difference is of no moment. rendered ordering private respondent and/or his heirs or
receipt of the same and to pay his rental indebtedness And such agreement is binding and is the law between successors-in-interest to immediately vacate the
minus the deposit made. Nevertheless, private the parties. premises of the property in question and to pay the
respondent failed to vacate the premises. unpaid rentals thereof of P1,000.00 a month for the two
apartments until they vacate the premises, with costs
Since the lease agreement in question is for a definite
against private respondent.
Hence, petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer period it follows that petitioner has a right to judicially
in the City Court of Manila on March 7, 1977. After the eject private respondent from the premises as an
issues were joined and the trial on the merits, a decision exception to the general rule provided for in Section 4 of SO ORDERED.
was rendered on February 16, 1981 dismissing the P.D. No. 20 which provides as follows:
complaint and counter-claim without pronouncement as
Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
to costs. Both parties asked for a reconsideration of the
Except when the lease is for a
decision but the same was denied. Hence, both parties
definite period, the provisions of
appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, Grio-Aquino, J., took no part.
paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the
wherein in due course a decision was rendered on
Civil Code of the Philippines insofar as
December 28, 1981 affirming the judgment of the City
they refer to dwelling unit or land on
Court with the modification finding private respondent
which another's dwelling is located
entitled to moral damages in the amount of P4,000.00,
shall be suspended until otherwise
exemplary damage ages in the amount of P2,000.00 and Footnotes
provided; but other provisions of the
attorney's fees of P2,000.00 and the costs of the suit. A
Civil Code and the Rules of Court of
motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied
the Philippines on lease contracts 1 Exhibits A and A-1; page 6, Rollo.
by the trial court in an order of February 25, 1982.
insofar as they are not in conflict with
the provisions of this Act, shall apply.
2 Exhibit A-2.
Hence, a petition for review was filed by petitioner with (Emphasis supplied.)
the Court of Appeals, wherein after the issues were
joined, a decision was rendered on October 7, 1982 3 Exhibit B.
Moreover, under Section of 5(f) of B.P. Blg. 25 one of the
dismissing the petition with costs against petitioner. 6 A
grounds for ejectment is the expiration of the period of
motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner of the
a written lease contract. In this case, because of the 4 Exhibits D and D-2
decision was denied in a resolution of November 17,
failure of the private respondent to pay the increased
1982.
rental demanded by petitioner, petitioner elected to
5 Exhibit E-1; pages 44-45, Rollo.
terminate the contract and asked the private respondent
Thus, this petition. to vacate the premises. A lease contract may be
terminated at the end of any month, which shall be 6 Madame Justice Milagros A. German
deemed terminated upon the refusal to pay the was the ponente, concurred in by
A reading of the two contracts of lease entered into
increased monthly rental demanded by the petitioner, Justices Carolina C. Grio-Aquino and
between petitioner and private respondent hereinabove
provided the same is not exhorbitant. 8 Vicente V. Mendoza.
reproduced show that its period is from month to month
and that the lease may be terminated when either party
gives a 5 days notice in writing. Further, there is no question in this case that the two 7 97 SCRA 453 (1980).
apartments subject of litigation if not a greater portion
thereof is not used by private respondent as his
No doubt such a stipulation between the parties 8 Vda. de Kraut vs. Lontok, 7 SCRA
residence but for a Buddhist Temple. Thus, it is with
demonstrates that the agreement of lease is for a 281 (1963).
more reason that this lease agreement does not fall
definite period and not for an indefinite period as held
within the protective mantle of the provision of P.D. No.
by the appellate court.
20 and B.P. No. 25 which covers only dwelling units. $ + GRSI Copyrightregno N94-027
{bmr footnote.bmp}87585_3_27_90_footnotes>mainG.R.
In Rantael vs. CA, 7 involving a similar contract of lease No. 87585 March 27, 1990
Lastly, considering that during the pendency of this
between the parties this Court found that a lease on a BLUE MANILA, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
appeal, the private respondent died on August 23, 1987,
month to month basis expires after the last day of the COMMISSION, ET AL.
thus the said lease agreements were effectively
30th day period repeating the same cycle of the 30-day
terminated by the death of private respondent who is
period until either party express their prerogative under
the lessee of the premises in question. Republic of the Philippines
their agreement to terminate the same.
SUPREME COURT
Manila Inc. On September 16, 1986, he was still refused to pay complainant's
sent to Bahrain to board the vessel claim saying that the latter was no
'GRAY-VANGUARD' as AB/Oiler at the longer entitled to receive his claim
FIRST DIVISION
agreed basic salary of US$335 per considering that respondent has paid
month for a period of six (6) months for his plane fare and his
G.R. No. 87585 March 27, 1990 with a further understanding that he replacement.
will receive a war zone bonus at 100%
of his basic salary plus overtime pay.
BLUE MANILA, INC., petitioner, xxx xxx xxx
On October 3, 1986, the vessel
vs.
actually entered the war zone until
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE
November 10, 1986. On said date, the On the other hand, respondent in its
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION and
principal SEATRANS OFFSHORE LTD. answer specifically denied the money
EMMANUEL E. ABELLANEDA, respondents.
informed the crew that its lease over claims of complainant asserting that
the vessel had expired, hence, the complainant had obtained substantial
Capuyan & Quimpo Law Office for petitioner. crewmembers disembarked at Kharg cash advances and that it had paid
Island, Iran where complainant was the airfare ticket of complainant and
offered the same job to work with the his replacement which consequently
Manuel L. Montilla for private respondents.
vessel MV 'SEATRANS 23' leased by compensated, satisfied and/or
the same principal. Complainant extinguished the same. Respondent,
accepted the offer and on November further claimed that if ever there is
11, 1986, he embarked and any balance due the complainant, the
commenced working thereon with the same has not been remitted by its
GRIO-AQUINO, J.:
sole purpose of completing the foreign principal Seatrans Offshore
remaining portion of his contract. Co., Ltd. (pp. 46-48, Rollo.)
The petition for certiorari alleges a single ground for the However, from the time he started
allowance of the writ, to wit: working, he was not paid his salary
The POEA ascertained that the amount of $1,451.22 was
and other benefits due him. This
the cost of airfare for both complainant and his
prompted him to get cash advances
replacement. Hence, it concluded that complainant's
for his family's sustenance in the
airfare was half of that amount, or $725.64 (p. 50,
Philippines allegedly amounting to
Rollo.)
THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR $512.48. For the same reason,
RELATIONS COMMISSION ACTED WITH complainant voluntarily decided to
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION disembark on January 28, 1987 at After computing the unpaid wages due Abellaneda as
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN Bahrain. While therein, he demanded well as the cash advances he had received from his
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN from the Operations Manager of employer, the POEA rendered judgment ordering
AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF Seatrans, Mr. Horst Jager, his long respondent to pay to complainant the following amounts,
THE PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS overdue salaries and other benefits to wit:
EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION covering the period from November
DESPITE CLEAR AND PATENT 11, 1986 to January 28, 1987.
1. THREE THOUSAND SEVENTEEN and
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FINDINGS OF However, instead of giving in to
54/l00 US DOLLARS (US$3,017.54) or
FACT AND LAW AND THE DISPOSITIVE complainant's just and valid claims,
its equivalent in Philippine Currency
PORTION OF THE DECISION. (p. 11, Mr. Jager charged him for simulated
at the time of payment, representing
Rollo.) offenses for which complainant was
the balance of unpaid salaries, less
incarcerated from 8:00 P.M. of
cash advances in the total amount of
January 28, 1987 until 10:00 A.M. of
The petitioner is the recruitment agent that shipped the P23,500.00;
the next day. After representation
private respondent, Emmanuel Abellaneda, to the Middle with the Immigration Office in
East to serve for a period of six (6) months as a seaman Bahrain, Mr. Jager promised that 2. SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE and
on the vessel of its foreign principal, the Seatrans complainant shall receive his entire 64/100 US DOLLARS (US$725.64) or
Offshore Ltd. After his contract was preterminated, he salary in Manila giving him a letter its equivalent in Philippine Currency
sued for his unpaid wages. The facts, as alleged in the dated January 29, 1987 (attached as at the time of payment, representing
pleadings and summarized in the decision of the POEA, Annex 'A' of the complaint) addressed airfare ticket of complainant's
are as follows: to Capt. Mangabat to evidence said replacement;
promise. However, in Manila, Capt.
The complainant in his complaint- Mangabat refused to pay said claim
3. TEN PERCENT (10%) of the total
affidavit alleged that sometime in for alleging that the money has not
award as and by way of attorney's
May, 1986, he applied for overseas been remitted yet. Despite repeated
fees.
work with respondent Blue Manila, demands for payment Capt. Mangabat
There is no other pronouncement. (p. amount reflected as a deduction from cash advances in the total of
51, Rollo.) his gross salary receivable. In the P23,500.00 and the sum of SEVEN
same manner, the cost of the ticket HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE and 64/100
for private respondent himself was US DOLLARS (US$725.64) or its
It may be observed that in computing the amount due
not reflected as a deduction from his equivalent in Philippine Currency at
Abellaneda, the POEA failed to deduct the airfare of
salary receivable. Since petitioner the time of payment, representing
US$725.64 which his employer paid for his return trip to
spent for the return ticket of private the airfare ticket for the repatriation
Manila. Instead, the POEA erroneously ordered the
respondent, the amount must be of the complainant; and
petitioner to pay him the airfare (US$725.64) of his
allowed as additional deduction from
replacement, as if Abellaneda (instead of the petitioner)
private respondent's unpaid salary so
had advanced the cost of said airline ticket. 2. TEN PERCENT (10%) of the total
that petitioner may be refunded of
award as and by way of attorney's
the amount spent for the return
fees.
In its appeal to the NLRC, the petitioner failed to notice ticket of private respondent as ruled
this error in the decision (p. 46, Rollo). It assailed only by the POEA. (pp. 97-98, Rollo.)
that part of the decision holding it solidarily liable with SO ORDERED.
its foreign principal for the money judgment in favor of
He argues, however, that since the error was not raised
Abellaneda. It argued that:
by the petitioner in its appeal to the NLRC, the error is Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea,
deemed waived. Errors of judgment may not be JJ., concur.
1. Respondent Blue Manila, Inc. [now reviewed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
petitioner] is merely an agent of a (Hermogenes vs. Amores, 111 SCRA 658). Appeal is the
disclosed principal and it has not proper remedy.
waived its right to non-liability nor
acted beyond its authority; and Footnotes
While the rule is that "No error which does not affect
the jurisdiction over the subject matter will be
2. It is error to state that the joint considered unless stated in the assignment of errors and * Words in parenthesis supplied.
and solidary liability of the local properly argued in the brief," the exception to the rule
agent and the foreign principal is is: "save as the court, at its option, may notice plain
$ + GRSI Copyrightregno N94-027
well-settled in this jurisdiction. (p. errors not specified, and also clerical errors" (Sec. 7,
{bmr footnote.bmp}79329_3_28_90_footnotes>mainG.R.
53, Rollo.) Rule 51, Rules of Court).
No. 79329. March 28, 1990.
MOBIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL
Upon the affirmance in toto of the POEA decision by the The mathematical error in the POEA decision is a plain LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
NLRC (p. 65, Rollo), the petitioner filed this petition for error which this Court may correct (Sec. 7, Rule 51,
certiorari pointing out the inconsistency between Rules of Court). To overlook it would be inconsistent
Republic of the Philippines
paragraph 2 of the dispositive portion of the POEA with substantial justice, for it would permit a party to
decision and the finding in the body of the decision that unjustly profit from a mistake or inadvertence of
since "complainant (Abellaneda *) out of his volition another or others, the POEA and the petitioner in this SUPREME COURT
unilaterally preterminated his contract of employment, case. It would also put a premium on a technicality
..., it is only equitable that respondent (now contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Labor Code
Manila
petitioner *) deduct the repatriation expenses from the (Art. 221, Labor Code).
complainant's salary. However, it is unfounded to deduct
the airfare ticket of complainant's replacement from his THIRD DIVISION
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The
salary" in accordance with Sec. H (4), Part II of the
dispositive part of the decision of the POEA and the NLRC
Standard Format which provides that "the seaman when
in Case No. M-87-06-525 is hereby modified as follows: G.R. No. 79329 March 28, 1990
discharged shall not be liable for the transportation cost
of his replacement." (pp. 48-49, Rollo.)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, MOBIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (MEA) and INTER-ISLAND
judgment is hereby rendered ordering LABOR ORGANIZATION-IBMEWA (ILO), petitioners,
The Solicitor General in his comment on the petition
respondent Blue Manila, Inc. to pay to vs.
admits an error in the dispositive portion of the POEA's
complainant Emmanuel E. Abellaneda NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; MOBIL OIL
decision. He says:
the following amounts, to wit: PHILIPPINES, INC. (MOPI), MOBIL PHILIPPINES, INC. (MPI),
MOBIL PETROLIUM COMPANY, INC. (MOBILPET), J.P.
... petitioner should not have been BAILLEAUX, E.G. JAVELOSA, V.S. TINTOC and F.U. UMALI;
1. THREE THOUSAND SEVENTEEN and
ordered to pay private respondent CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. (CPI) and A.R. GUTIERREZ
54/100 US DOLLARS (US$3,017.54) or
the sum of US$725.64 since the latter and OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
its equivalent in Philippine Currency
did not spend for the transportation respondents.
at the time of payment, representing
of his replacement nor was the
the balance of unpaid salaries, less
Bayani V. Faylona for petitioners. months basic salary as of 31 August 1983 for every year members of their respective Boards of Directors as
of service; and that their unused vacation leave for the respondents. Still later, another amendment to the
current year would be paid in cash. Simultaneously, complaint was filed to include as additional petitioner
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private
notices of MOPI's withdrawal from business were also Inter-Island Labor Organization ("ILO"), with whom MOPI-
respondents.
sent to the then Ministry of Labor and Employment Iloilo had a CBA for the period from 1 May 1982 to 31
("MOLE") and its regional offices in places where MOPI May 1985. Finally, a supplementary mental complaint
had branches. was filed charging respondents with another count of
ULP, i.e., failure of the latter to check-off and pay
petitioners' union dues for September, 1983.
FELICIANO, J.: In a letter dated 12 August 1983, MOPI employees
requested Mr. Bailleaux to improve their termination
package. In a decision in NLRC Case No. NCR-8-3929-83 dated 12
In 1983, Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. ("MOPI"), a domestic
December 1984, 2 the Labor Arbiter dismissed the
corporation engaged in the marketing of petroleum
complaint for failure of petitioner to prove that MOPI
products, was the subject of sale negotiations between On 18 August 1983, MOPI, thru Mr. Bailleaux, improved
was guilty of ULP and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter
Mobil Petroleum Company of New York ("Mobil Pet") and the employees' termination package considerably: (1)
found that the termination of all MOPI employees was
Caltex Petroleum Company, New York, U.S.A., ("Caltex repayment of all personal loans of employees, except
caused by cessation of MOPI's business operations in the
Pet"). The negotiations covered, among other things, the those obtained under the company car policy, was
country; that in respect of this kind of termination,
sale of (a) Mobil Pet's one hundred percent (100%) waived by the company; (2) for purposes of computation
MOPI's only task pursuant to the Labor Code was to serve
interest in MOPI to Caltex Pet and (b) Mobil Pet's forty of their termination pay, CBA increases due to union-
notice of termination on its employees and on the then
percent (40%) interest in the Bataan Refining Company represented employees in October, November and
MOLE and its regional offices at least thirty (30) days
("BRC"). December 1983 on one hand were incorporated in their
before its effectivity date and to pay separation pay to
basic salary, while the budgeted merit increase from
affected employees in accordance with law; 3 that MOPI
September to December, 1983 for non-bargainable
did comply with these requirements; that the dissolution
employees on the other hand was added to their basic
was done in good faith, no proof having been presented
salary; (3) employees who were not previously scheduled
to establish that the dissolution was carried out to
To protect its interests, Mobil Employees Association to receive merit increases in 1983 were granted an
circumvent the CBAs between MOPI and the petitioner
("MEA"), with whom MOPI-Luzon had an existing adjustment to their basic salary; (4) the monthly cost of
unions; that the newly created subsidiary of Mobil Pet,
Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") covering the living allowance was included in the calculation of the
MPI, could not be categorized as a successor-in-interest
period from 1 May 1982 to 30 April 1985, inquired about encashment of outstanding and unused vacation leave
of MOPI because MOPI's main line of business was the
the impending sale in talking to officials of MOPI. The for separating employees; (5) the ten (10) working days
marketing of petroleum products while MPI was engaged
latter were then non-commital as no definite agreement sick leave encashment privilege under company policy
in the marketing of Mobil Pet's chemicals and
had as yet been reached. The negotiations on the was granted to separating employees in Salary Groups 1
international business like high octane aviation fuels,
proposed sale were taking place off-shore, i.e., between to 15 pro-rated on the basis of 8/12 of one year
marine fuels and exports; that Caltex Pet, upon
two (2) foreign corporations, Mobil Pet and Caltex Pet, privilege; (6) the actual unused sick leave carry-over as
acquiring the shares of stock of MOPI caused the latter's
outside the Philippines. The sale of Mobil Pet's 40% of December 31, 1975, maximum of 15 working days,
dissolution at the SEC; that MPI's hiring of some of MOPI's
interest in BRC was made one of the conditions was encashed irrespective of salary grouping of the
employees was merely for the purpose of liquidating and
precedent to the perfection of the sale of MOPI. Finally, affected separating employees; and (7) the 1983 year-
winding up the affairs of MOPI; that MOPI had not
approval by Philippine government agencies such as the end bonus was paid to separating employees pro-rated
restricted exercise of the right to self-organization of
Board of Investments and the Central Bank of the on the basis of 8/12 of one year's privilege.
members of MEA, who had free access to the use of the
projected sale had yet to be obtained.
conference room of MOPI in Makati, which access had
Upon conclusion of the contract of sale between Mobil not been availed of by MEA; that MEA had not proved
On 3 August 1983, the Philippine National Oil Company Pet and Caltex Pet, on 31 August 1983, 1 the latter that its counsel, who was not an employee of MOPI, was
("PNOC"), owner of sixty percent (60%) interest in BRC caused MOPI's dissolution by appropriate filings with the refused entrance to MOPI's Makati-based conference
signified its intention to buy all of Mobil Pet's interest in Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in Manila. All room; and that, finally, check-off was no longer available
BRC. Thus, on the same date, officials of MOPI issued a the employees separated from the service, 467 of them, considering that MOPI's relationship with the employees
memorandum circular addressed to all their employees were paid a total of P5,646,817.73 including loans had ceased by 31 August 1983.
regarding the conclusion of the sale negotiations and waived, pursuant to the revised termination package.
eventually, the cessation of MOPI's business operation on Some of these employees were hired, on a contractual
In a resolution of the NLRC Second Division dated 6 April
31 August 1983. basis, to wind up MOPI's affairs, by a newly formed
1987, petitioners' appeal from the decision of the Labor
subsidiary of Mobil Pet, Mobil Philippines, Inc. ("MPI").
Arbiter was dismissed for lack of merit.
In a letter dated 5 August 1983, MOPI's President, J.P.
Bailleaux informed all the employees that on 31 August On 31 August 1983, MEA filed a complaint for unfair
In the present Petition for Certiorari, petitioners claim
1983 their employment with the company would cease labor practice ("ULP"), illegal lay-off and separation
that private respondents committed acts constituting
as a result of MOPI's withdrawal from business. Mr. benefits against MOPI with the National Labor Relations
unfair labor practices. These acts, in their allegations,
Bailleaux however, assured them that they would be Commission ("NLRC"), National Capital Region. The
were:
paid compensation up to or until 5 September 1983; that complaint was later on amended to include Mobil
they would be given separation pay equivalent to 2.25 Philippines, Inc. ("MPI"), Mobil Pet, Caltex Pet and all the
(a) the termination of the Art. II Management Clause Art. 284. Closure of establishment
employment of MOPI's employees and reduction of personnel. The
without notice to the petitioner employer may also terminate the
Section 1. The union recognizes the
unions, in violation of relevant employment of any employee due to
following as the rights of the
provisions of their CBAS; the installation of labor-saving
company.
devices, redundancy, retrenchment
to prevent losses or the closing or
(b) the failure of private respondents
xxx xxx xxx cessation of operation of the
to check off and pay to petitioner
establishment or undertaking, unless
unions their dues for September
the closing is for the purpose of
1983; In cases of termination, dismissal,
circumventing the provisions of this
lay-off and shut down, the company
title by serving a written notice on
may effect such actions, subject to
(c) the dissolution of MOPI and the the workers and the Ministry of
the provisions of the New Labor Code
creation of MPI were done to Labor and Employment at least one
and its implementing Rules and
circumvent the CBA agreements (1) month before the intended date
Regulations.
between MOPI and petitioner MEA on thereof. In case of termination due to
the one hand and MOPI and petitioner the installation of labor-saving
ILO on the other hand; and In the exercise of its above rights, devices or redundancy, the worker
time and circumstances permitting affected thereby shall be entitled to a
the management whenever possible separation pay equivalent to at least
(d) the interference with petitioner
shall enlist the support of the union his one (1) month pay or to at least
unions' members in the exercise of
in actions affecting the vital interests one (1) month pay for every year of
their right to self-organization by
of the bargainable employees. Art II, service, whichever is higher. In case
refusing a non-MOPI employee the use
MEA CBA; Art. II, ILO CBA. 5 of retrenchment to prevent losses
of the company conference room.
and in cases of closures or cessation
of operations of establishment or
Examination of the CBA provisions entitled "Effectivity "
Petitioners supplementarily argue, apparently in relation undertaking not due to serious
shows that the written notice to terminate that is
to (c) above, that MPI is a successor-in-interest of MOPI, business losses or financial reverses,
required to be given by either party to the other relates
considering that MPI is a wholly owned subsidiary of the separation pay shall
to notice to terminate the CBA at the end of the original
Mobil Pet in the same manner that MOPI was; that the be equivalent to one (1) month pay
three-year period or any subsequent year thereafter, in
members of MPI's Board of Directors are the same or at least one-half (1/2) month pay
the absence of which written notice, the duration of the
persons who had served as Directors of MOPI; and that for every year of service, whichever
CBA would be automatically extended for one (1) year
MPI had hired some of MOPI's former employees. is higher. A fraction of at least six (6)
periods. What is involved in the instant Petition is not,
months shall be considered one (1)
however, the termination of the CBA itself, considering
whole year. (Emphasis supplied.)
We do not find the contentions of petitioners persuasive. that the sale by Mobil Pet of its wholly owned subsidiary
MOPI to Caltex Pet took place in 1983, in the middle of
original period of the CBAs. It appears to the Court that Under Article 284 above, three (3) requirements may be
The relevant provisions in the CBAs invoked by
the applicable provision is Article II, Section 1, quoted seen to be established in respect of cessation of business
petitioners are identical and read as follows:
above. Under Article II, Section 1, in cases of operations of an employer company not due to business
termination of services of employees, the company is reverses, namely:
EFFECTIVITY required to comply with the provisions of the Labor Code
and its implementing Rules and Regulations and, "time
(a) service of a written notice to the
and circumstances permitting" and "whenever possible,"
Section 1. This agreement shall be employees and to the MOLE at least
management should enlist the support of the unions in
effective from the l st day of May l982 one (1) month before the intended
actions affecting the vital interests of the bargainable
to 30th April 1985, subject to date thereof;
(i.e., member) employees. It may be well to add that,
automatic extension for yearly
since actual notice was given to all of MOPI's employees,
periods unless terminated at the end
including, of course, the employees who were members (b) the cessation of or withdrawal
of the original period or any
of petitioner unions, such notice may also be regarded as from business operation petitions
subsequent year thereafter upon
effectively the notice to the unions contemplated by the must be bona fide in character; and
sixty (60) days prior written notice by
CBA provision on "Effectivity."
either party to the other of its
intention to terminate, modify, (c) payment to the employees of
amend or supplement this Article 284 of the Labor Code as it existed in 1983 termination pay amounting to at least
agreement. (Art. XVIII MEA-MOPI CBA, provided as follows: one-half (1/2) month pay for each
Annex 'A'; Art. XIX, Annex 'LL' for ILO year of service, or one (1) month pay,
CBA, emphasis supplied). 4 whichever is higher.
As noted earlier, MOPI's employees and the MOLE were We conclude that petitioners have failed to show any PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
notified in writing on 5 August 1983 that the employees' grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess vs.
services would cease on 31 August 1983, but that of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC in rendering its ADOLFO QUIONES, RONILO CANABA, AMADO CONDA,
employees would nonetheless be paid their salaries and decision dated 6 April 1987. JR., ZALDY CIVICO and ALFREDO ABAN, accused-
other benefits until or as of 5 September 1983. We appellants.
believe that is more than substantial compliance with
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for
the notice requirements of the Labor Code. In respect of
lack of merit. Costs against petitioners. The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-
requirement (c) above relating to payment of
appellee.
termination pay to the employees, we also noted earlier
that the termination pay package given by MOPI to all its SO ORDERED.
employees far exceeded the minimum requirement of Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellants.
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service laid
Fernan, C.J. (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and
down in Article 284 of the Labor Code. The very
Cortes, JJ., concur.
generosity of the termination pay package thus given to
the employees argues strongly that the cessation of
business operations by MOPI was a bona fide one. It is CRUZ, J.:
very difficult for this Court to believe that MOPI would
be dissolved and all its employees separated with
Footnotes On June 30, 1986, the bodies of three men were found
generous separation pay benefits, for the sole purpose of
in a wooded area in barangay Tuaco, Basud, Camarines
circumventing the requirements of MOPI's CBA with
Norte. The corpses were in a state of decomposition and
petitioner unions. Indeed, petitioners have not suggested 1 Comment, p. 12; Rollo, p. 74.
bore various contusions, stab and bullet wounds, and
any reason why MOPI should have undertaken such a
other injuries indicating foul play. The victims were later
fundamental and non-reversible business reorganization
2 Rollo, p. 107. positively identified as Alexander Sy, Augusto Gabo and
merely to evade its obligations under the CBA. The
Frisco Marcellana.
establishment of MPI with the same Directors who had
served as such in MOPI and the hiring of some former 3 See Article 284 (now Article 283) of
MOPI employees for the purpose of settling and winding the Labor Code dealing with closing or
up the affairs of MOPI, does not detract from the bona cessation of operation of the company
fide character of MOPI's dissolution and withdrawal from not due to serious business losses.
In due time, an information for robbery with multiple
business. MPI's residual business consisting of the
homicide was filed against Adolfo Quiones, Alfredo
marketing of chemicals, aviation and marine fuels as well
4 Petition, pp. 8-9; Rollo, pp. 10-11; Aban, Zaldy Civico, Ronilo Canaba, Amado Conda, Jr.,
as exports, all of which constituted a fraction of the
Comment, p. 6; Rollo, p. 175; Santiago Solarte, Armando Buitre and one John Doe. 1
prior business of MOPI, similarly does not argue against
the bona fide character of the corporate reorganization underscoring supplied.
which here took place. The net effect of the On their arraignment on November 13, 1986, Quiones,
reorganization was the liquidation by Mobil Pet of the 5 Petition, p. 13; Rollo, p. 15; Canaba, Aban, Civico and Conda pleaded not guilty. On
great bulk of its former business in the Philippines, the underscoring supplied. November 20, 1986, Conda, Canaba, and Quiones
dissolution of the corporate entity of MOPI and the withdrew their plea of not guilty and entered a plea of
transfer of its physical assets and business to some other guilty. 2 On April 1, 1986, Conda was allowed to
Philippine entity owned and controlled by Caltex Pet, $ + GRSI Copyrightregno N94-027
withdraw his former plea of guilty and substitute the
presumably Caltex Philippines, without any impact upon {bmr footnote.bmp}80042_3_28_90_footnotes>mainG.R.
same With not guilty. 3 Solarte escaped and is presently
the foreign exchange reserves of the Philippines. No. 80042 March 28, 1990.
at large while Buitre was killed in an encounter with the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ADOLFO QUIONES, ET
Manila police. 4
AL.
The final argument of petitioner unions need not detain
us for long. Having validly ceased to operate as of 31 Judge Luis D. Dictado of the Regional Trial Court of Daet,
August 1983, the duty of MOPI to cheek off and turn over Republic of the Philippines
Camarines Norte directed the prosecution to present
to petitioners union dues from their members for evidence also against Quiones and Canaba despite their
September 1983, or until the expiration of the CBA in SUPREME COURT plea of guilty, which they maintained even after being
accordance with its terms, also ceased. In respect of informed of its possible consequences, including the
alleged interference by MOPI with the rights of death penalty. After trial, judgment was rendered
petitioners' members to self-organization, petitioners Manila
convicting all the accused (except Solarte, who had not
have not adduced any compelling reason for overturning yet been arrested, and Buitre). 5
the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that MOPI FIRST DIVISION
had not interferred or encroached upon such right.
Petitioner MEA admitted that it had not been denied the The evidence for the prosecution established that the
G.R. No. 80042 March 28, 1990 three victims were riding in a dark blue Mitsubishi car at
use of the company conference room. Indeed, this
about seven o'clock in the evening of June 27 or 28,
matter appears to us to be a de minimis affair.
1986, when they were intercepted along the Maharlika
Highway in the above-named barangay by the accused, slain. 14 This is another indication that the had not been protruding tongues tell a tale of their own of the
who had placed sacks on the road to block the way. The manhandled into signing the confession. defendants' perverted ruthlessness.
three were taken to the nearby woods where they were
killed. 6 According to his brother, Napoleon, Alexander
lt is important to note that when asked at the trial if he By contrast, the defense was practically one of mere
Sy was at that time carrying P300,000.00, representing
was affirming his extra-judicial statement, he denial. Even the claimed maltreatment of Quiones has
the weekly collections of his business, a necklace with
categorically said he was, 15 thus in effect reiterating his not been established.
pendant worth P20,000.00, a P10,000.00 diamond ring,
detailed account of the conduct of the several accused,
and a licensed .22 caliber handgun. 7 All this, together
including their escape to Manila in the stolen car and
with the other articles belonging to the victims, were It is clear from the evidence on record that there was a
their distribution of the loot among themselves. This was
taken by the accused, who also used the car in fleeing to conspiracy among the perpetrators of the crime to rob
now a judicial confession. Interestingly, Quiones also
Sapang Palay, where it was recovered without the stereo and slay. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
admitted to two other hold-ups and his membership in
and the spare tire. 8 come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
another gang of robbers headed by one Kapitan Mitra, an
felony and decide to commit it. This need not be
unnecessary embellishment that lent further credence to
established by direct evidence but may be proven
The first to be picked up for questioning was Conda, who his confession. 16
through the series of acts done by each of the accused in
implicated the other accused and led a police team to
pursuance of the common unlawful purpose. 21
the house of Sonny Tabalan, where Solarte was hiding,
Canaba's own statement corroborated Quiones'
Inexplicably, Conda and Solarte both escaped. However,
confession and provided more elaboration. Like
the police found in Tabalan's house one live grenade, Proof of conspiracy in the case at bar was supplied,
Quiones, he admitted that they had placed sacks on the
one .38 caliber pistol, a defective air rifle with paradoxically enough, mainly by defendants Quiones
load and forced the three victims to go with them to the
magazine, and a wooden rifle which he said had been and Canaba themselves. From the time they blocked the
parke where they were unclothed and killed, two by
brought there by Solarte and Quiones. In separate road to waylay their prey to the killing and robbing in
Buitre and the third by Solarte. Quiones remained in
extra-judicial statements, 9 both Quiones and Canaba the woods, to the distribution of the loot and their
the car. Afterwards, the accused distributed the cash
identified these weapons as the ones used in the escape in the stolen car, all the accused were acting in
among themselves, each receiving P10,000.00, with
commission of the crime. 10 concert and in accordance with their common plan.
Solarte and Buitre getting the weapons also. Using Sy's
car, they proceeded to Sapang Palay after leaving the
Testifying for the prosecution, Francisco Bariuan weapons with Sonny Tabalan in his house in Tigbinan. 17 It is argued that Civico and Aban were not part of the
declared that on July 7, 1986, Solarte came to his house conspiracy and that Quiones himself categorically said
and asked him to pawn a watch for P300.00. Solarte so in answer to a question from the prosecution.
Conda also gave an extra-judicial confession, but this
returned the following day with Canaba and Conda. They Interpreting this merely as a gesture of loyalty or
was not made with the assistance of counsel and so must
were carrying guns and a grenade. Solarte informed him perhaps goodwill or charity toward his fellow criminals,
be rejected. It is totally worthless and inadmissible
that they were the ones who, together with Buitre, we dismiss it as a falsity. On the other hand, Civico
against him. Such a confession is anathema in a free
Quiones and Aban, had killed Sy and his companions. He himself admitted his own participation in the offense,
society. It was not recognized even during the era of
and Solarte left later to hire jeep and Canaba and Conda and in his sworn confession (which he affirmed in court)
martial law under the 1973 Constitution as interpreted
stayed behind, warning him that they would blow up his also implicated Aban. And there is also Bariuan's
by the Court in People v. Galit. 18 And it is also scorned
house if he squealed on them. 11 testimony that Aban was one of the armed group,
under the present Constitution, which is more deeply
including the other accused, that went to his house on
committed to the protection of the rights of the accused.
July 8, 1986, and talked of their commission of the
But the case for the prosecution really depended on the
crime. These declarations are enough to place the two
statements of the accused themselves, principally
Civico also gave an extra-judicial confession, likewise defendants within the conspiracy together with the
Quiones and Canaba. Both were informed of their
without the assistance of counsel. 19 But testifying on his other defendants.
constitutional rights before their investigation and were
behalf, he purged it of invalidity when he freely affirmed
actually assisted by Atty. Santiago Ceneta when they
it on the stand in the presence of the judge himself and
gave their separate confessions. 12 Both confessed to the In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and every
with the assistance of defense counsel. 20 By so
crime charged and narrated in detail their participation one of the conspirators is guilty with the others in equal
testifying, he in effect reiterated but validly this time
in its commission. degree. Hence, every member of the group that
his earlier narration, replete with all the damming
perpetrated the killing and robbery of the three victims
details, of the commission of the crime.
must suffer the same penalty prescribed by law even if
Quiones later testified that he had been subjected to
they had different modes of participation in the
torture to force him to admit the killing and
The Court is satisfied that the evidence against the commission of the crime. 22
robbery, 13 but as the trial judge noted, no proof of such
accused is sufficient to justify their conviction. The
coercion was ever presented in court. Moreover, the
declarations of the prosecution witnesses and more so
witness' narration of the commission of the offense The trial judge found all the accused guilty as charged
of defendants Quiones and Canaba, both of whom had
substantially jibed with the testimony of the other and sentenced each of them to serve the triple penalty
pleaded guilty are telling enough to toll their guilt.
accused, thus negating the suspicion that it had been of reclusion perpetua and to pay actual and
The seized weapons and the other exhibits offer strong
merely concocted. Understandably, Quiones sought to compensatory damages in the amount of P380,000.00 to
corroboration that has not been refuted. The state of
minimize his participation in this crime by claiming that the heirs of Alexander Sy, P50,000.00 to the heirs of
the cadavers of the swollen scrotums and the
he stayed in the car when the three victims were Augusta Gabo, and P50,000.00 to the heirs of Frisco
forcibly taken to the woods where they were robbed and
Marcellana. The firearms were also confiscated in favor term of reclusion perpetua for the crime of robbery with 18 135 SCRA 465.
of the State. homicide. The monetary awards are also modified in
accordance with the preceding paragraph. It is so
19 Records, p. 9.
ordered.
The Court finds that the accused were incorrectly
charged with robbery with multiple homicide and so
20 TSN, April 8, 1987, pp. 11-13.
were also incorrectly sentenced by the trial court. The Narvasa (Chairman), Gancayco, Grio-Aquino and
reason is that there is no crime of robbery with multiple Medialdea JJ., concur.
homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The charge 21 People v. Pineda, 157 SCRA 71.
should have been for robbery with homicide only
regardless of the fact that three persons were killed in
22 People vs. Salvador, 163 SC RA
the commission of the robbery. In this special complex
574.
crime, the number of persons killed is immaterial and Footnotes
does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294
of the said Code. As held in People v. Cabuena: 23 23 98 Phil. 919.
1 Rollo, p. 6.