"If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this

only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not
know." CHUA-QUA vs. CLAVE, G.R. No. 49549 August 30, 1990

"Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government
of measures calculated to ensure economic stability of all the component elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of
the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of
all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est supremo lex." CALALANG
vs. WILLIAMS, G.R. No. 47800. December 2, 1940

The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a
guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation
and promise. DepEd vs. SAN DIEGO, G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989

Retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree because their intention is
to provide for his sustenance, and hopefully even comfort, when he no longer has the stamina
to continue earning his livelihood. After devoting the best years of his life to the public service,
he deserves the appreciation of a grateful government as best concretely expressed in a
generous retirement gratuity commensurate with the value and length of his services. That
generosity is the least he should expect now that his work is done and his youth is gone. Even
as he feels the weariness in his bones and glimpses the approach of the lengthening shadows,
he should be able to luxuriate in the thought that he did his task well, and was rewarded for it.
Santiago v. COA, G.R. No. 92284, July 12, 1991;
cited in Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992

Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage. This sad truth has unsettled many a
love transformed into matrimony. Any sort of deception between spouses, no matter the
gravity, is always disquieting. Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006

Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it
is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is
definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor
gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its
value as a sublime social institution. Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-
Tsoi, GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997

Love happens to everyone. It is dubbed to be boundless as it goes beyond the expectations

people tagged with it. In love, “age does matter.” People love in order to be secure that one will
share his/her life with another and that he/she will not die alone. Individuals who are in love
had the power to let love grow or let love die – it is a choice one had to face when love is not
the love he/she expected. Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009

We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred
and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other reason.
Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519, July 31, 1997
The nuptial vows which solemnly intone the matrimonial promise of love ‘(f)or better or for
worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part,’ are sometimes
easier said than done, for many a marital union figuratively ends on the reefs of matrimonial
shoals. In the case now before us for appellate review, the marriage literally ended under
circumstances which the criminal law, disdainful of romanticism, bluntly calls the felony of
parricide. People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Takbobo, GR No. 102984, 30 June 1993

The Court, like all well-meaning persons, has no desire to dash romantic fancies, yet in the
exercise of its duty, is all too willing when necessary to raise the wall that tears Pyramus and
Thisbe asunder. Concerned Employee vs. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, AM No. P-02-1564, 23
November 2004

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts
about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities,
but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious
mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner
being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth. Lejano vs. People/People vs.
Webb, G.R. No. 176389/G.R. No. 176864, Dec. 14, 2010

The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and intimate relationship. The bar is an
attache of the courts. The quality of justice dispensed by the courts depends in no small
degree upon the integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily bring scandal and reproach to
the administration of justice and bring the courts themselves into disrepute.
cited in In Re: ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL., March 18, 1954

The days of the secret laws and the unpublished decrees are over. This is once again an open
society, with all the acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available always to
public cognizance. This has to be so if our country is to remain democratic, with sovereignty
residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them. TAÑADA vs
TUVERA, G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986

Certainly, the rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect because stability in jurisprudence is
desirable. Nonetheless, reverence for precedent, simply as precedent, cannot prevail when
constitutionalism and the public interest demand otherwise. Thus, a doctrine which should be
abandoned or modified should be abandoned or modified accordingly. After all, more important
than anything else is that this Court should be right. Olaguer vs Military Commission, G.R.
No. L-54558 May 22, 1987

Hence, a judge's official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties should
be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. One who occupies
an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high price for the honor
bestowed upon him, for his private as well as his official conduct must at all times be free from
the appearance of impropriety. Because appearance is as important as reality in the
performance of judicial functions, like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only be pure but also
beyond suspicion. A judge has the duty to not only render a just and impartial decision, but
also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and
impartiality, and also as to the judge's integrity. "It is obvious, therefore, that while judges
should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and enforce the
law, it is more important that they should act and behave in such a manner that the parties
before them should have confidence in their impartiality." Joaquin vs. Javellana [A.M. No.
RTJ-00-1601. November 13, 2001]
We take this opportunity to reaffirm our concern for the lowly worker who, often at the mercy of
his employers, must look up to the law for his protection. Fittingly, that law regards him with
tenderness and even favor and always with faith and hope in his capacity to help in shaping
the nation's future. It is error to take him for granted. He deserves our abiding respect. How
society treats him will determine whether the knife in his hands shall be a caring tool for beauty
and progress or an angry weapon of defiance and revenge. The choice is obvious, of course. If
we cherish him as we should, we must resolve to lighten "the weight of centuries" of
exploitation and disdain that bends his back but does not bow his head. Cebu Royal Plant vs.
The Honorable Deputy Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-58639, August 12, 1987

[1] Antonio v. Reyes (J. Tinga; G.R. No. 155800; March 10, 2006)

Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage. This sad truth has unsettled many a
love transformed into matrimony. Any sort of deception between spouses, no matter the
gravity, is always disquieting. Deceit to the depth and breadth unveiled in the following pages,
dark and irrational as in the modern noir tale, dims any trace of certitude on the guilty spouse’s
capability to fulfill the marital obligations even more.

[2] Palaganas v. People (J. Chico-Nazario; G.R. No. 165483; September 12, 2006)

For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught. To say the things he
truly feels; And not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows - And did it
my way! The song evokes the bitterest passions. This is not the first time the song "My Way"
has triggered violent behavior resulting in people coming to blows. In the case at bar, the few
lines of the song depicted what came to pass when the victims and the aggressors tried to
outdo each other in their rendition of the song.

[3] Oposa v. Factoran (J. Davide, Jr; G.R. No. 101083; July 30, 1993)

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs
to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation
and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners,the advancement of which
may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic
rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is
because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself,
thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too
far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

[4] People v. Salinas (J. Cruz; G.R. No. 107204; May 6, 1994)

In rape cases, there are no half measures or even quarter measures nor is their gravity
graduated by the inches of entry. Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration; the
rape is deemed consummated in either case. In a manner of speaking, bombardment of the
drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops do not succeed in entering the castle.
[5] Chua-Qua v. Clave(J. Regalado; G.R. No. 49549; August 30, 1990)

With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows
that the alleged violation of the Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis.
Private respondent utterly failed to show that petitioner took advantage of her position to court
her student. If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic
levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which
reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be
so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from
the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.

[6] Calalang v. Williams(J. Laurel; G.R. No. 47800; December 2, 1940)

Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

[7] DECS v. San Diego (J. Cruz; G.R. No. 89572; December 21, 1989)

There can be no question that a substantial distinction exists between medical students and
other students who are not subjected to the NMAT and the three-flunk rule. The medical
profession directly affects the very lives of the people, unlike other careers which, for this
reason, do not require more vigilant regulation. The accountant, for example, while belonging
to an equally respectable profession, does not hold the same delicate responsibility as that of
the physician and so need not be similarly treated. There would be unequal protection if some
applicants who have passed the tests are admitted and others who have also qualified are
denied entrance. In other words, what the equal protection requires is equality among equals.
The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a
guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation
and promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. While his persistence is
noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.

[8] Santiago v. COA (J. Cruz; G.R. No. 92284; July 12, 1991)

Retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree because their intention is
to provide for his sustenance, and hopefully even comfort, when he no longer has the stamina
to continue earning his livelihood. After devoting the best years of his life to the public service,
he deserves the appreciation of a grateful government as best concretely expressed in a
generous retirement gratuity commensurate with the value and length of his services. That
generosity is the least he should expect now that his work is done and his youth is gone. Even
as he feels the weariness in his bones and glimpses the approach of the lengthening shadows,
he should be able to luxuriate in the thought that he did his task well, and was rewarded for it.

[9] Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA (J. Torres, Jr; G.R. No. 119190; January 16, 1997)

It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent. That
is a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having
spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-
way process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other
can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children
but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect,
sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime
social institution.

[10] People v. Takbobo (J. Regalado; G.R. No. 102984; June 30, 1993)

The nuptial vows which solemnly intone the matrimonial promise of love "(f)or better or for
worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part," are sometimes
easier said than done, for many a marital union figuratively ends on the reefs of matrimonial
shoals. In the case now before us for appellate review, the marriage literally ended under
circumstances which the criminal law, disdainful of romanticism, bluntly calls the felony of
parricide.

[11] Concerned Employee v. Mayor (J. Tinga; A.M. No. P-02-1564; November 23, 2004)

Had respondent desisted from continuing her affair with Leao after learning he was married,
this would have exhibited not only prudence on her part, but also a willingness to respect a
legal institution safeguarded by our laws and the Constitution. Yet her persistence in
maintaining sexual relations with Leao after that revelation instead manifests a willful
subversion of the legal order, a disposition we are unwilling to condone, even if avowed in the
name of love. The Court, like all well-meaning persons, has no desire to dash romantic fancies,
yet in the exercise of its duty, is all too willing when necessary to raise the wall that tears
Pyramus and Thisbe asunder.

[12] Lejano vs. People/People vs. Webb, G.R. No. 176389/G.R. No. 176864, Dec. 14, 2010

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts
about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities,
but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious
mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to ones inner
being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

[13] In Re: Cunanan (J. Diokno; In Re: Cunanan; March 18, 1954)

The judicial department of government is responsible for the plane upon which the
administration of justice is maintained. Its responsibility in this respect is exclusive. By
committing a portion of the powers of sovereignty to the judicial department of our state
government, under 42a scheme which it was supposed rendered it immune from
embarrassment or interference by any other department of government, the courts cannot
escape responsibility fir the manner in which the powers of sovereignty thus committed to the
judicial department are exercised. The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and
intimate relationship. The bar is an attache of the courts. The quality of justice dispense by the
courts depends in no small degree upon the integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily
bring scandal and reproach to the administration of justice and bring the courts themselves into
disrepute.
[14] Tañada v. Tuvera (J. Cruz; G.R. No. L-63915; December 29, 1986)

The days of the secret laws and the unpublished decrees are over. This is once again an
open society, with all the acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available always
to public cognizance. This has to be so if our country is to remain democratic, with sovereignty
residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them.

[15] LCP v. COMELEC (J. Bersamin quoting J. Robert Jackson; G.R. No. 176951; June 28,
2011)

The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final. And
because its decisions are final, even if faulty, there must be every energy expended to ensure
that the faulty decisions are few and far between. The integrity of the judiciary rests not only
upon the fact that it is able to administer justice, but also upon the perception and confidence
of the community that the people who run the system have done justice.

[16] Joaquin v. Javellana (J. Vitug; A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601; November 13, 2001)

Hence, a judge's official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties should
be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. One who occupies
an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high price for the honor
bestowed upon him, for his private as well as his official conduct must at all times be free from
the appearance of impropriety.Because appearance is as important as reality in the
performance of judicial functions, like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only be pure but also
beyond suspicion. A judge has the duty to not only render a just and impartial decision, but
also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and
impartiality, and also as to the judge's integrity. It is obvious, therefore, that while judges
should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and enforce the
law, it is more important that they should act and behave in such a manner that the parties
before them should have confidence in their impartiality.

[17] Cebu Royal Plant v. Deputy Minister of Labor (J. Cruz; G.R. No. L-58639; August 12,
1987)

We take this opportunity to reaffirm our concern for the lowly worker who, often at the mercy of
his employers, must look up to the law for his protection. Fittingly, that law regards him with
tenderness and even favor and always with faith and hope in his capacity to help in shaping
the nation's future. It is error to take him for granted. He deserves our abiding respect. How
society treats him will determine whether the knife in his hands shall be a caring tool for beauty
and progress or an angry weapon of defiance and revenge. The choice is obvious, of course. If
we cherish him as we should, we must resolve to lighten "the weight of centuries" of
exploitation and disdain that bends his back but does not bow his head.

[18] The Shell Company v. National Labor Union (J. Briones; GR No. L-1309; July 26, 1948)

It is argued that the laborer can rest during the day after having worked the whole night. But
can the repose by day produce to the human body the same complete recuperative effects
which only the natural rest at night can give him? It is also said that due to our warm climate,
some prefer to work at night, thus avoiding the heat of the day. But this is true only in words
but not in actual practice. We believe that since time immemorial the universal rule is that a
man works at night due to some driving necessity rather than for reasons of convenience.

[19] People v. Olesco(J. Del Castillo; G.R. No. 174861; April 11, 2011)

In rape, the ‘sweetheart’ defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the
accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual
relations. The second is as important as the first, because this Court has held often enough
that love is not a license for lust.

[20] Republic v. Cagandahan (J. Quisumbing; G.R. No. 166676; September 12, 2008)

Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and categorically
female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX)
chromosomes. However, respondent’s body system naturally produces high levels of male
hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic
features of a male. Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken
unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has
already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and
taken steps, like taking lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical mold of a
female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in
respondent’s development to reveal more fully his male characteristics. In so ruling we do no
more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with what
nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondent’s congenital condition and his
mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but
respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier,
considering the unique circumstances in this case.

[21] Brillante v. CA

"Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who
steals my purse steals trash; tis Something, nothing; But he that filches from me my good
name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed." (Shakespeare:
Othello, III, iii, 155) Every man has a right to build, keep and be favored with a good name.
This right is protected by law with the recognition of slander and libel as actionable wrongs,
whether as criminal offenses or tortious conduct. xxx Our laws on defamation provide for
sanctions against unjustified and malicious injury to a persons reputation and honor.

It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the fault of others and to forget his own. (Phil.
Savings Bank vs. Chowking Food Corp.,G.R. No. 177526, July 4, 2008)

The silence often of pure innocence persuades when speaking fails. (People of the Phil. vs.
Romy L. Fallones, G.R. No. 190341, March 16, 2011)

One's wealth is not measured solely by his occupation. Being a mere supervisor of a motor
shop does not prove that such employee does not own any vehicle for sale. (Gregorio
Amante, et al. vs. BibianoSerwelas, G.R. No. 143572, September 30, 2005)
A man's reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has
of himself. (Phil. Journalists, Inc., et al.vs. Francis Thoenen, G.R. No. 143372, December
13, 2005)

Every man has a right to build, keep and be favored with a good name. This right is protected
by law with the recognition of slander and libel as actionable wrongs, whether as criminal
offenses or tortious conduct. (Roberto Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, GR 118757 & 121571,
October 19, 2004)

A suicide attempt is a form of "escapism" equivalent to flight, which is an indication of guilt.

(People of the Phil. vs.G.R. No. 148710, January 15, 2004)

“Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot
coals without his feet being scorched?” So goes an early admonition against immorality from
the Holy Book that is as valuable today as it was thousands of years ago. In the judiciary,
“moral integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity”. A court employee who has fallen short
of the exacting standards of morality and decency has to face the consequences, even after
the embers have died and the scars have faded. (Evelina C. Banaag v. Olivia C.
Espeleta,A.M. No. P-11-3011, December 16, 2011)

If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo

painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep
streets so well that all the hosts of Heaven and Earth will pause to say, here lived a great street
sweeper who did his job well. — Martin Luther King, Jr. (People of the Phil. vs. Evangeline
S.Siton, et al., G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009)

There can be no love where respect is gone. (People vs. Rivera November 17, 1999)

Love is not a license for lust. (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004)

She unconditionally laid herself prostrate to his charms, too much enamored of him to care
about anything else. For, as philosopher Blaise Pascal has so pithily stated of the profundity of
human love, ‘love has reasons that reason cannot explain. (Abaigar vs. Paz – September 10,
1979)

The universal puff about love being free, doubtless a stale statement, remains a useful piece of
legal advice yet for the roaming lothario, to stress that money in all its forms, the dowry
included, is not the legitimate consideration for passion and affection which ordinarily spring
from courtship and requited love, nor does it endow a license to subject the object of his
affection to lewd desires. (People of the Philippines vs. Lito Egan alias Akiao, G.R. No.
139338. May 28, 2002]

One of the ironic verities of life, it has been said, is that sorrow is sometimes a touchstone of
love. (Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70890, 18 September 1992)

The nuptial vows which solemnly intone the matrimonial promise of love ‘(f)or better or for
worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part,’ are sometimes
easier said than done, for many a marital union figuratively ends on the reefs of matrimonial
shoals. In the case now before us for appellate review, the marriage literally ended under
circumstances which the criminal law, disdainful of romanticism, bluntly calls the felony of
parricide. (People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Takbobo, GR No. 102984, 30 June 1993)