UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS SCHOOL OF LAW

Froilan Jay C. Suarez LLB

Made by:

Civil Procedure 2015-2016

Atty Armando Ligutan
Case Digest
Nature of Philppine Courts:
Contents:
Phil. Carpet Manufacturing v. Tagyamon, G.R. No. 191475, December 11, 2013
See: U.S. v. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321 (1915)
Philippine Carpet Manufacturing vs Tagyamon
Facts:
Respondents are employees
of the petitioner
who were affected by the
retrenchement and voluntary retirement programs. Respondents filed complaint for
illegal Dismissal. They explained that PCMC did not in fact suffer losses shown by its
acts prior to the subsequent prior to and subsequent to their termination PCMC
defended its decision yo terminate respondents, contending that there was an
authorized cause for dismissal. They further stressed that respondents belatedly
filed their complaint as they allowed filed their complaint as they allowed almost 3
years to pass making the principle of laches applicable. LA dismissed the complaint
for lack of merit. NLRC sustained Las decision CA reversed the decision. CA refused to
apply the principle of laches because the the case was instituted prior to the
expiration of the periodset by the law is four years. CA also order for the
reinstatement of the respondents with backwages
Issue:
Whether or not respondent are guilty of laches
Held
No. Laches is a doctrine in equipty while prescription is based on law. Our courts are
basically courts of law not courts of equipty. As for equity which has been aptly
describe as justice outside legality this is applied only in the absence of, and never
againts statutory law or as in this case judicial rules on procedure. An action for
reinstatement should be brought within four years from the time of their dismissal
Art. 1146 of he civil code. The filing of the complaint by the respondent was still
within the prescriptive period. Laches cannot therefore be invoked yet.

US vs Tamparong
Facts:
The defendants were convicted by the justice of the peace of Baguio for having
played the game of chance called Monte in violation of the oridinance No. 35. They
appealed to the CFI where they were again tried and convicted upob the same
charge. An appeal was brought before the SC because the validity of Ordinance No.
35 was drawn in question. It is contended that the questions of fact are those which
essential to be examined for the purpose of determining the legality of Oridiance No.
35 and the penalties provided therein.
Issue:
WON the court is required under the law to examine the evidence for the purpose of
determining the guilt of defendants.
Held
No Act No. 1627 provides that the judgement of the CFI in such appeals shall be final
and conclusive except in cases involving the valdity or constitutionality of a statute or
the constitutionality of a municipal or township ordinance. In the case decided by the
Supreme Court no attemot was made to examine or pass upon the testimony
touching the guilt or innocence of the appeallants. In fact the court has not since its
organization held in any case that it has the power to review the facts touching the
guilt of an accused in cases of the character of one under consideration.