Judicial Department- Cases
. Pasay Trans Co. (1932)ANSWER - The SC is requested to sit as board of arbitrators
as provided for under the law.
Ruling: Invalid. This is not a judicial function.
Garcia v. Macaraig (1971)ANSWER - Judge Macaraig was asked to review the
petitioners for the DOJ. He was acting like the executive secretary for the Secretary of
Justice.
Ruling: Invalid because there is conflict of interest. It is possible that he might review
decisions that may be filed before his court. Macaraig was performing an executive
function which is a violation of the separation of powers.
Nitafan v. CIR (1987)ANSWER - WON the salaries of judges are taxable.
Ruling: Yes! Exemption of the judiciary from taxes is a violation of equal protection.
Equal protection means that the same class of persons receives the same treatment
unless they have substantial distinction. Is there such in our present case? None.
Members of the judiciary and other members of the different branches are all
government employees. Since other members of the different branches are taxed, the
judiciary must also be taxed.
In Re Gonzales (1988)ANSWER - WON the ombudsman can dismiss a judge.
Ruling: No. The SC has the sole disciplinary jurisdiction over judges.
Ratio: To prevent undue influence and harassment cases.
*The Ombudsman is like a prosecutor. Its findings are filed before the RTC.
Santiago v. Bautista (1970)ANSWER - The proclamation of honor students of a
graduating class is being assailed.
Ruling: No jurisdiction. There is no right to be an honor student, hence, no legally
demandable right that is violated.
Felipe v. Leuterio (1952)ANSWER - The petitioner was asking the court to reverse the
award given in an oratorical contest.
, Ruling: No jurisdiction. There is no legally demandable right. There is no right to win an
oratorical contest.
How about the case involving a student that was prevented from finishing her speech
during her graduation and because of that the school refused to give her a certificate of
good moral which prevented her from entering college? This is justiciable. The
certificate was a requirement that the student needs.
Valladolid v. Inciong (1992)ANSWER - The order of the Deputy minister of labor was
being assailed because it did not state the facts and the law.
Ruling: Valid. The Constitutional requirement is only applicable to court of law and
judicial decisions. The order was coming from a quasi-judicial body.
Nunal v. COA (1989)ANSWER - Decision of the COA is being assailed because it did
not follow the requirement under the Constitution. The SC in a resolution stated the
legal basis for the dismissal of the petition to review the decision of the COA.
Ruling: The resolution of the SC is valid. Legal basis is the only requirement for
resolutions issued by courts. The decision of COA is still valid even if it did not follow the
requirement because COA is not mandated under the law to follow the consti
requirement even if it exercises quasi-judicial functions.
People v. Bugarin (1996)ANSWER - The decision of the RTC does not state the
grounds for the conviction of Bugarin for the felony of rape.
Ruling: Invalid. The requirement was not met. Under the law, decisions must state the
Facts and the law. The TC must have stated why Bugarin was guilty and if the elements
of the crime were met.
Importance: To inform the parties of the reason for the decision, so if there is any
appeal, he can point out in the appellate court the matters he disagrees. It is also an
assurance that the judge went to the process of legal reasoning.
Hernandez v. CA (1993)ANSWER - The court copied and pasted the facts adopted by
the OSG and it made its own legal discussion.
Ruling: Valid. There is no prohibition against the court adopting the narration of facts; it
suffices that the court states in its decision the facts on which it is based.
Yao v. CA (2000)ANSWER - The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC without stating
the facts and the law it is based.
Ruling: Invalid. The requirement is that decisions must state the facts and the law. The
reason is to afford a person due process by giving him a fair opportunity to be heard.
. Pasay Trans Co. (1932)ANSWER - The SC is requested to sit as board of arbitrators
as provided for under the law.
Ruling: Invalid. This is not a judicial function.
Garcia v. Macaraig (1971)ANSWER - Judge Macaraig was asked to review the
petitioners for the DOJ. He was acting like the executive secretary for the Secretary of
Justice.
Ruling: Invalid because there is conflict of interest. It is possible that he might review
decisions that may be filed before his court. Macaraig was performing an executive
function which is a violation of the separation of powers.
Nitafan v. CIR (1987)ANSWER - WON the salaries of judges are taxable.
Ruling: Yes! Exemption of the judiciary from taxes is a violation of equal protection.
Equal protection means that the same class of persons receives the same treatment
unless they have substantial distinction. Is there such in our present case? None.
Members of the judiciary and other members of the different branches are all
government employees. Since other members of the different branches are taxed, the
judiciary must also be taxed.
In Re Gonzales (1988)ANSWER - WON the ombudsman can dismiss a judge.
Ruling: No. The SC has the sole disciplinary jurisdiction over judges.
Ratio: To prevent undue influence and harassment cases.
*The Ombudsman is like a prosecutor. Its findings are filed before the RTC.
Santiago v. Bautista (1970)ANSWER - The proclamation of honor students of a
graduating class is being assailed.
Ruling: No jurisdiction. There is no right to be an honor student, hence, no legally
demandable right that is violated.
Felipe v. Leuterio (1952)ANSWER - The petitioner was asking the court to reverse the
award given in an oratorical contest.
, Ruling: No jurisdiction. There is no legally demandable right. There is no right to win an
oratorical contest.
How about the case involving a student that was prevented from finishing her speech
during her graduation and because of that the school refused to give her a certificate of
good moral which prevented her from entering college? This is justiciable. The
certificate was a requirement that the student needs.
Valladolid v. Inciong (1992)ANSWER - The order of the Deputy minister of labor was
being assailed because it did not state the facts and the law.
Ruling: Valid. The Constitutional requirement is only applicable to court of law and
judicial decisions. The order was coming from a quasi-judicial body.
Nunal v. COA (1989)ANSWER - Decision of the COA is being assailed because it did
not follow the requirement under the Constitution. The SC in a resolution stated the
legal basis for the dismissal of the petition to review the decision of the COA.
Ruling: The resolution of the SC is valid. Legal basis is the only requirement for
resolutions issued by courts. The decision of COA is still valid even if it did not follow the
requirement because COA is not mandated under the law to follow the consti
requirement even if it exercises quasi-judicial functions.
People v. Bugarin (1996)ANSWER - The decision of the RTC does not state the
grounds for the conviction of Bugarin for the felony of rape.
Ruling: Invalid. The requirement was not met. Under the law, decisions must state the
Facts and the law. The TC must have stated why Bugarin was guilty and if the elements
of the crime were met.
Importance: To inform the parties of the reason for the decision, so if there is any
appeal, he can point out in the appellate court the matters he disagrees. It is also an
assurance that the judge went to the process of legal reasoning.
Hernandez v. CA (1993)ANSWER - The court copied and pasted the facts adopted by
the OSG and it made its own legal discussion.
Ruling: Valid. There is no prohibition against the court adopting the narration of facts; it
suffices that the court states in its decision the facts on which it is based.
Yao v. CA (2000)ANSWER - The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC without stating
the facts and the law it is based.
Ruling: Invalid. The requirement is that decisions must state the facts and the law. The
reason is to afford a person due process by giving him a fair opportunity to be heard.
