Restituto Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court et al.

No. L-74457, 20 March 1987, En banc

Facts:
Restituto Ynot had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984,
when they were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violating
Executive Order No. 626-A, which prohibits the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the
slaughtering of carabaos below seven years old (if male) and eleven years old (if female).

Ynot sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing
of a supersedeas bond of P12,000. After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the
confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of
the bond.

Ynot appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Ynot therefore filed a petition to the Supreme Court for review on certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not Executive Order No. 626-A is constitutional

Ruling:
No. The ban on the transportation of carabaos from one province to another (EO 626-A), their
confiscation and disposal without a prior court hearing is violative of due process. Such measure is an
invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not
reasonably necessary to the purpose of law and is unduly oppressive.

Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in
his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative
authorities (in the case, the police) of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear
encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. Lastly,
there is an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned (such as the Chairman of
the National Meat Inspection Commission and the Director of Animal Industry) who are granted
unlimited discretion in the distribution of powers arbitrarily taken.

Vivas vs The Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corp.
G.R. No. 191424, 7 August 2013, Third Division, Mendoza, J.

Facts:
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, et al.
No. L-76633, 18 October 1988, First Division, Cruz, J.

Facts:
Vitaliano Saco was a Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo,
Japan on March 15, 1985. His widow Kathleen sued for damages under Executive Order No. 797 and
Memorandum Circular No.2 of the POEA. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., as owner of the vessel, argued
that the complaint was cognizable not by the POEA but by the Social Security System and should have
been filed against the State Insurance Fund. Nevertheless, the POEA assumed jurisdiction and after
considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of Kathleen, the complainant. She was
awarded the sum of P180,000 as death benefits and P12,000 for burial expenses.

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. then filed a petition to dismiss such decision on the principal ground that the
POEA had no jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseas worker.