SANTOS vs NORTHWEST ORIENT

23 09 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992

AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III, represented by his father and legal guardian, Augusto Benedicto Santos, petitioner,
vs.
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

 

CRUZ, J.:

This case involves the Proper interpretation of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, reading as follows:

Art. 28. (1) An action for damage must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of his principal place of business, or where he has a place of business through which the contract has been made, or before the court at the place of destination.

The petitioner is a minor and a resident of the Philippines. Private respondent Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign corporation with principal office in Minnesota, U.S.A. and licensed to do business and maintain a branch office in the Philippines.

On October 21, 1986, the petitioner purchased from NOA a round-trip ticket in San Francisco. U.S.A., for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and back. The scheduled departure date from Tokyo was December 20, 1986. No date was specified for his return to San Francisco. 1

On December 19, 1986, the petitioner checked in at the NOA counter in the San Francisco airport for his scheduled departure to Manila. Despite a previous confirmation and re-confirmation, he was informed that he had no reservation for his flight from Tokyo to Manila. He therefore had to be wait-listed.

On March 12, 1987, the petitioner sued NOA for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. On April 13, 1987, NOA moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Citing the above-quoted article, it contended that the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before:

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE





NERI vs SENATE COMMITTEE

22 09 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC 

[G.R. No. 180643, September 04, 2008] 

ROMULO L. NERI, PETITIONER, VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY, RESPONDENTS.

R E S O L U T I O N 

 

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

 

Executive privilege is not a personal privilege, but one that adheres to the Office of the President. It exists to protect public interest, not to benefit a particular public official. Its purpose, among others, is to assure that the nation will receive the benefit of candid, objective and untrammeled communication and exchange of information between the President and his/her advisers in the process of shaping or forming policies and arriving at decisions in the exercise of the functions of the Presidency under the Constitution. The confidentiality of the President’s conversations and correspondence is not unique. It is akin to the confidentiality of judicial deliberations. It possesses the same value as the right to privacy of all citizens and more, because it is dictated by public interest and the constitutionally ordained separation of governmental powers.

In these proceedings, this Court has been called upon to exercise its power of review and arbitrate a hotly, even acrimoniously, debated dispute between the Court’s co-equal branches of government. In this task, this Court should neither curb the legitimate powers of any of the co-equal and coordinate branches of government nor allow any of them to overstep the boundaries set for it by our Constitution. The competing interests in the case at bar are the claim of executive privilege by the President, on the one hand, and the respondent Senate Committees’ assertion of their power to conduct legislative inquiries, on the other. The particular facts and circumstances of the present case, stripped of the politically and emotionally charged rhetoric from both sides and viewed in the light of settled constitutional and legal doctrines, plainly lead to the conclusion that the claim of executive privilege must be upheld.

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE





BENGZON VS SENATE BLUE RIBBON

22 09 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991

JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR., ABELARDO TERMULO, JOSE MANTECON, VICENTE MILLS JR., LEONARDO GAMBOA, KURT BACHMANN JR., JOSE V.E. JIMENEZ, ERNESTO CALUYA, AGERICO UNGSON, SUSAN ROXAS, ELVIE CASTILLO, and CYNTHIA SABIDO LIMJAP, Petitioners, vs. THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS, represented by and through the CHAIRMAN, HON. WIGBERTO TAÑADA, respondents, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, intervenor.

 

PADILLA, J.:

This is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief, to enjoin the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon committee from requiring the petitioners to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez to the Lopa Group in thirty-six (36) or thirty-nine (39) corporations.

On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), assisted by the Solicitor General, filed with the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0035 (PCGG Case No. 35) entitled “Republic of the Philippines vs. Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez, et al.”, for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages.

The complaint was amended several times by impleading new defendants and/or amplifying the allegations therein. Under the Second Amended Complaint, 1 the herein petitioners were impleaded as party defendants.

The complaint insofar as pertinent to herein petitioners, as defendants, alleges among others that:

14. Defendants Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez and Juliette Gomez Romualdez, acting by themselves and/or in unlawful concert with Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, and taking undue advantage of their relationship, influence and connection with the latter Defendant spouses, engaged in devices, schemes and stratagems to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the Filipino people, among others:

(a) Obtained, with the active collaboration of Defendants Sene J. Gabaldon, Mario D. Camacho, Mamerto Nepomuceno, Carlos J. Valdez, Cesar C. Zalamea and Francisco Tantuico, Atty. Jose Bengzon, Jr. and his law partners, namely: Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr., Jose Vicente E. Jimenez, Amando V. Faustino, Jr., and Leonardo C. Cruz; Jose S. Sandejas and his fellow senior managers of FMMC/PNI Holdings groups of companies such as Leonardo Gamboa, Vicente T. Mills, Jr., Jose M. Mantecon, Abelardo S. Termulo, Rex C. Drilon II and Kurt Bachmann, Jr., control of some of the biggest business enterprises in the Philippines, such as the Manila Corporation (MERALCO), Benguet Consolidated and the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank) by employing devious financial schemes and techniques calculated to require the massive infusion and hemorrhage of government funds with minimum or negligible “cash out” from Defendant Benjamin Romualdez…

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE





People of the Philippines vs Eugenio Pasilan

2 12 2010


Amnesty – when cannot be invoked – new trial

 

Pasilan was a former guerilla fighting against the Japanese. In 1944, while cleaning his gun outside the house of one Justina Miguel, a certain Ciriaco Abarra passed by. Pasilan ordered Abarra to wait for him. Abarra waited and after cleaning his gun, Pasilan interrogated Abarra. Abarra was alleged to be supporting the Japanese cause and he was one of the persons who accompanied the Japanese troops in raiding the barrio where Pasilan lived.

READ THE REST OF THE DIGEST HERE





Florencio Pelobello vs Gregorio Palatino

2 12 2010

 

Absolute Pardon

 

Palatino was the mayor elect of Torrijos, Marinduque. Pelobello filed a quo warranto proceeding alleging that Palatino is no longer qualified to hold office because he was already convicted before and was even imprisoned. Because of such conviction and imprisonment, Peleobello averred that Palatino is already barred from voting and being voted upon.

READ THE REST OF THE DIGEST HERE





Valentino Legaspi vs Minister of Finance

28 11 2010

 

Other Options Available to the President Aside from Declaring Martial Law – Amendment No. 6

 

In 1982, after the lifting of Martial Law, Legaspi, then incumbent member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, petitioned to declare Presidential Decree 1840 “granting tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets and liabilities and some other purposes” unconstitutional.

READ THE REST OF THE DIGEST HERE





Benigno Aquino Jr. vs Military Commission No. 2, Chief of Staff, Chief Justice et al

28 11 2010


Martial Law – Open Court Theory – Military Courts

In September 1972, after the declaration of Martial Law, Ninoy was arrested and was placed under custody. He was brought Fort Bonifacio. He filed for the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus which was denied by the SC. Ninoy then questioned the validity of such denial and the declaration of martial law; at the same time he questioned the authority of the military court [No. 2] created [pursuant to GO 2-A] to try him and his other companions.

READ THE REST OF THE DIGEST HERE








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers

%d bloggers like this: