Oblicon Syllabus 2.

As to Plurality of Prestation
Pre-requisites to : Sales, Lease, Agency, Partnership & Trust, Credit a. conjunctive
Transactions b. alternative Arts. 1199-1205
Faculty : Atty. Crisostomo A. Uribe c. facultative Art. 1206
Course Outline 3. As to rights & obligations of multiple parties Arts. 1207-1222
I. Obligations Arts. 1156-1304 a. Joint
A. In General b. Solidary Arts. 927, 1824, 1911, 1915, 1945, 2157, 2194, 2146
1. Definition Art. 1156 Arts. 94, 121 FC ; Art. 90 RPC
2. Kinds of Obligations as to basis & enforceability Art. 1423-1430; 1139-1155 c. Disjunctive
Villaroel v. Estrada, 71 Phil 140 Ronquillo v. CA, 132 SCRA 274
Ansay v. NDC, 107 Phil 997 Malayan Insurance v. CA, 165 SCRA 536
DBP v. Confessor, 161 SCRA 307 (1988) PNB v. Independent Planters, 122 SCRA 113
3. Elements of Obligations 4. As to performance of prestation Arts. 1221-1225, 1209-1210
B. Sources of Civil Obligations Art. 1157 a. Divisible
1. Law Art. 1158 b. Indivisible
2. Contracts Arts. 1159, 1305 c. Joint indivisible
3. Quasi-contracts Arts. 1160, 2142-2175 d. Solidary indivisible
a. Negotiorum Gestio 5. As to the presence of an accessory undertaking in case of breach
b. Solutio Indebiti a. with a Penal Clause Arts. 1226-1230
c. Other Quasi-Contracts Distinguish from Liquidated Damages
Cruz v. Tuazon & Co., 76 SCRA 543 Bachrach v. Espiritu, 52 Phil 346
Gutierrez Hermanos v. Orense, 28 Phil 571 Robes-Francisco v. CFI, 86 SCRA 59
Adille v. CA, 157 SCRA 455 Pamintuan v. CA, 94 SCRA 556
Andres v. Mantrust, 177 SCRA 618 (1989) 3
Puyat & Sons v. Manila, 7 SCRA 970 E. Breach of Obligations Art. 1170
4. Acts or omissions punished by law Arts. 1167, 2177, Arts. 100 & 104 RPC Manner of Breach
5. Quasi-delicts Arts. 1162, 2176 1. fraud Arts. 1171, 1338, 1344
Sagrada Orden v. NACOCO, 91 Phil 503 2. negligence Arts. 1171-1173
Peoples Car v. Commando Security, 51 SCRA 40 3. delay Arts. 1169, 1165, 1786, 1788, 1896, 1942
Cangco v. MRR, 38 Phil 768 4. any other manner of contravention
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 56 Phil 177 Excuse for non-performance
C. Compliance with Obligations Arts. 19, 1163-1166, 1244, 1246, 1460, 442, 440 1. Fortuitous Event Arts. 1174, 552, 1165, 2147, 2159
D. Kinds of Civil Obligations 2. Act of creditor
1. As to Perfection & Extinguishment Agcaoili v. GSIS, 165 SCRA 1
a. pure Arts. 1179, 1197 Arrieta v. Naric, 10 SCRA 79
b. conditional Arts. 1181-1190 Telefast v. Castro, 158 SCRA 445
c. with a term or period Arts. 1180, 1193-1198 NPC v. CA, 161 SCRA 334
Pay v. Palanca, 57 SCRA 618 Jimenez v. City of Manila, 150 SCRA 510
Smith Bell v. Sotelo Matti, 44 Phil 874 Nakpil & Sons v. CA, 144 SCRA 596; 160 SCRA 334
Chavez v. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547 F. Remedies for Breach of Obligations Arts. 1165-1168, 1170, 1177-1178,
Encarnacion v. Baldomar, 77 Phil 470 1191-1192, 2236, 302, 1708; Arts. 153, 155 FC; Rule 39 Sec. 13
Eleizegui v. Lawn Tennis Club, 2 Phil 309 1. Extra-judicial remedies
Philbanking v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 53 a. expressly granted by law Arts. 1786, 1788, 1526
Lim v. People, 133 SCRA 333 b. stipulated
Araneta, Inc. v. Phil. Sugar Estates, 20 SCRA 330 2. Judicial remedies
Millare v. Hernando, 151 SCRA 484 a. principal remedies Arts. 1191, 1170
b. subsidiary remedies Arts. 1380, 1177 Kinds of Compensation
c. ancillary remedies Rules of Court a. legal
Universal Food Corp. v. CA, 33 SCRA 1 b. conventional
Magdalena Estate v. Myrick, 71 Phil 344 facultative
UP v. de los Angeles, 35 SCRA 102 c. judicial
Zulueta v. Mariano, 111 SCRA 206 Gan Tion v. CA, 28 SCRA 235
Palay, Inc. v. Clave, 124 SCRA 638 PNB v. Ong Acero, 148 SCRA 166
Angeles v. Calasanz, 135 SCRA 323 Francia v. IAC, 162 SCRA 753
Boysaw v. Interphil Promotions, 148 SCRA 635 Republic v. de los Angeles, 98 SCRA 103
Pilipinas Bank v. IAC, 151 SCRA 546 Solinap v. del Rosario, 123 SCRA 640
Central Bank v. CA, 139 SCRA 46 Sycip v. CA, 134 SCRA 317
G. Modes of Extinguishment of Obligations Art. 1231 Cia Maritima v. CA, 135 SCRA 593
Saura v. DBP, 44 SCRA 445 Intl. Corporate Bank v. IAC, 163 SCRA 296
1. Payment or performance Arts. 1232-1244, 1246-1251, 1302; Mindanao Portland Cement v. CA, 120 SCRA 930
RA 529, RA 8183; PD 72, Secs. 31-32 6. Novation Arts. 1291-1304, 1215
J.M. Tuason v. Javier, 31 SCRA 829 Kinds of Novation
Legarda v. Saldaa, 55 SCRA 324 a. As to its nature
Azcona v. Jamandre, 151 SCRA 317 i) subjective or personal
Araas v. Tutaan, 127 SCRA 828 ii) objective or real
Kalalo v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337 b. As to its form
Ponce v. CA, 90 SCRA 533 i) express
New Pacific Timber v. Seeris, 101 SCRA 686 ii) implied
Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. IAC, 191 SCRA 411 (Nov. 16, 1990) Fua v. Yap, 74 Phil 287
Tibajia, Jr. v. CA, 223 SCRA 163 (January 4, 1993) Millar v. CA, 38 SCRA 642
4 Sandico v. Piguing, 42 SCRA 322
Velasco v. Meralco, 42 SCRA 556 NPC v. Dayrit, 125 SCRA 849
Commissioner v. Burgos, 96 SCRA 831 Integrated Construction v. Relova, 146 SCRA 360
Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corp. v. NAWASA, 161 SCRA 32 5
Del Rosario v. Shell, 164 SCRA 556 Cochingyan v. R & B Surety, 151 SCRA 339
Special Forms of Payment Balila v. IAC, 155 SCRA 262
a. Dation in Payment Art. 1245 Peoples Bnk v. Syvels, 164 SCRA 247
b. Application of Payments Arts. 1252-1254, 1248 Rodriguez v. Reyes, 37 SCRA 195
c. Payment by Cession or assignment Art. 1255 7. Other Modes
d. Tender of Payment and Consignation Arts. 1256 - 1261 II. Contracts Arts. 1305-1422
Filinvest v. Phil Acetylene, 111 SCRA 421 A. In General
Citizens Surety v. CA, 162 SCRA 738 1. Definition Arts. 1305
Soco v. Militante, 123 SCRA 160 Auto-contract Arts. 1491, 1646, 1890
Immaculata v. Navarro, 160 SCRA 211 2. Elements of Contracts
2. Loss of the thing due or Impossibility of Performance Arts. 1262-1269, a. essential
1189, 1174, 1165, 1268, 1942, 1979, 2147, 2159 b. natural
People v. Franklin, 39 SCRA 363 c. accidental
Laguna v. Manabat, 58 SCRA 650 Batchelder v. CB, 44 SCRA 45
Occea v. Jabson, 73 SCRA 637 B. Characteristics/Principles of Contracts
3. Condonation or remission of the debt Arts. 1270-1274, 748, 749 1. Consensuality of Contracts Arts. 1305, 1317
4. Confusion or Merger of Rights Arts. 1275-1277, 1215, 1217 Contract of Adhesion
5. Compensation Arts. 1278-1290, 1243, 1215 Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620
Corpus v. CA, 98 SCRA 424 c. remuneratory
2. Autonomy of Contracts Arts. 1306, 1799, 2088, 2130 7. according to risk
Cui v. Arellano University, 2 SCRA 205 a. commutative
Saura v. Sindico, 107 Phil 336 b. aleatory Arts. 2010
Leal v. IAC, 155 SCRA 394 8. according to name
3. Mutuality of Contracts Arts. 1308-1310, 1182 a. nominate
Acceleration Clause b. Innominate Arts. 1307
Escalation Clause 9. according to subject matter
Banco Filipino Savings V. Navarro, 152 SCRA 346 (1987) a. thing
Florendo v. CA, 265 SCRA 678 (1996) b. right
4. Obligatory Force of Contracts Arts. 1159, 1315-1316, 749 c. service
5. Relativity of Contracts Arts. 1311-1314, 1177-1178, 1381(3) D. Stages of Contracts
Privity of Contracts 1. Negotiation
Velasco v. CA, 95 SCRA 616 Contract of Option Arts. 1324, 1479, 1482
Kauffman v. PNB, 42 Phil 182 Sanchez v. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368
Bonifacio Bros. v. Mora, 20 SCRA 261 2. Perfection
Florentino v. Encarnacion, 79 SCRA 192 Tong Brothers Co. v. IAC, 156 SCRA 726
Bank of America v. IAC, 145 SCRA 419 Velasco v. CA, 51 SCRA 439
Marimperio v. CA, 156 SCRA 368 3. Performance
Daywalt v. Corp de PP Agustinos, 39 Phil 587 4. Consummation
Gilchrist v. Cuddy, 29 Phil 542 (1915) 7
Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety, 100 Phil 389 (1956) E. Essential Elements of Contracts Arts. 1318
So Ping Bun v. CA, 314 SCRA 751 (1999) 1. consent of the contracting parties
6 Arts. 1319-1346, 37-42, 739, 1476(4), 1490-1491, 1533(5), 1646, 1782, 1409(7), 5
C. Classification of Contracts Arts. 87, 124, 234 FC; RA 6809; Art. XII, Secs. 7 & 8 1987 Constitution
1. according to degree of dependence Cognition Theory
a. preparatory Arts. 1479, 1767, 1868 Manifestation Theory
b. principal Arts. 1458, 1638, 1642, 1933, 1962 2. object certain which is the subject matter of the contract
c. accessory Arts. 2047, 2085 Arts. 1347-1349, 1311, 1178
2. according to perfection 3. cause of the obligation_ Arts. 1350-1355
a. consensual Arts.1315, 1475 4. Delivery
b. real Arts. 1316, 1934 5. Due observance of prescribed formalities
c. formal Arts. 1356 Ong Yiu v. CA, 91 SCRA 223
3. according to solemnity or form Arts. 1356 Weldon v. CA, 154 SCRA 618
a. any form C & C Commercial Corp. v. Menor, 120 SCRA 112
b. special form Tang v. CA, 90 SCRA 236
4. according to purpose Cario v. CA, 152 SCRA 529
a. transfer of ownership Arts. 725, 1458, 1638 Lagunzad v. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476
b. conveyance of use Arts. 562, 1642, 1933 Law v. Olympic Sawmill, 129 SCRA 439
c. rendition of service Arts. 1642, 1868 F. Form of Contracts Arts. 1356-1358
5. according to nature of obligation produced 1. any form oral
a. bilateral Arts. 1642, 1458 2. special form
b. unilateral Arts. 2047, 2093 a. validity Arts. 748, 749, 1744, 1773, 1874, 1956, 2134,
6. according to cause Arts. 1350 Act 1147, Sec. 22
a. onerous Arts. 1458, 1638, 1642 b. enforceability Arts. 1403, 1878
b. gratuitous or lucrative Arts. 725, 1933 c. greater efficacy or convenience Arts. 1358
Lao Sok v. Sabaysabay, 138 SCRA 134 Philbanking v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52
Gallardo v. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 Avila v. CA, 145 SCRA 541
G. Reformation of Contracts Arts. 1359-1369 Teja Marketing v. IAC, 148 SCRA 347
H. Interpretation of Contracts Arts. 1370-1379 Briones v. Cammayo, 41 SCRA 404
Lim v. CA, 99 SCRA 668
Republic v. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
Eastern Shipping v. Margarina-Verkaufs-Union, 93 SCRA 256
I. Kinds of Contracts as to Validity
Constitutional Law II
1. Valid and binding
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
2. Valid but defective
i) Rescissible Contracts Arts. 1380-1389, 1191 Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon
ii) Voidable Contracts Arts. 1390-1402, 1327-1328, 1330 I. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
iii) Unenforceable Contracts Arts. 1403-1408, 1317, 1878 A. Concept of Sovereign Will: Preamble Art. II, Sections 1and 3, Art V, Constitution
3. Void or Inexistent Arts. 1409-1422, 1318, 1353, 1378, 1491, 1898 B. The Concept of Separation of Powers and the Three Branches of Government: Art.VI, VII and VIII,
8 Constitution
Rescissible Contracts C. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to liberty, property and other
Cabaliw v. Sadorra, 64 SCRA 310 freedoms. (Section 1, Article III, Constitution)
Hongkong & Shanghai Bank v. Pauli, 161 SCRA 634 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil, 504(2003)
Voidable Contracts D. The Three Great Powers of Government: Police Power, Power to Tax, Power To Expropriate as limitations
Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon, 120 SCRA 628 to enjoyment of rights
House Intl. v. IAC, 151 SCRA 703 Read annotations found in political/ constitutional law books written by C.J. Justice Enrique Fernando, Fr. Jaoquin Bernas S.J.,
Unenforceable Contracts Justice Isagani Cruz and Professor Rene B. Gorospe
Ortega v. Leonardo, 103 Phil 870 1. Police Power
Carbonel v. Poncio, 103 Phil 655 History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in
Babao v. Perez, 102 Phil 756 Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion in this 1995 case said that the exercise
Cabague v. Auxilio, 92 Phil 294 of police power is not without limit. He said that while it is the prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare
Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, 104 SCRA 668 of the people thru the use of police power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property protected against
Clarin v. Rulona, 127 SCRA 512 unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide latitude in the exercise of its police power to bring about the greatest
Bisaya Land Transportation v. Sanchez, 153 SCRA 532 good of the greatest number. But when its purpose is putrefied by private interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and must be
Void or Inexistent struck down just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out.
Hernandez v. CA, 160 SCRA 821
Rubias v. Batiller, 51 SCRA 120 When exercise of police power may be questioned
Javier v. vda. De Cruz, 80 SCRA 343 MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of power, a government agency cannot
Menil v. CA, 84 SCRA 413 exercise police power. The Court said: Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power
Director of Lands v. Alba, 88 SCRA 513 delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the
Tongoy v. CA, 123 SCRA 99 implementation of the MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for
Lita Enterprises v. IAC, 129 SCRA 79 the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.-p
Arsenal v. IAC, 143 SCRA 40
Manotok Realty v. IAC, 149 SCRA 372 2. Power of Eminent Domain
Portugal v. IAC, 159 SCRA 178 Moday v. C. A. 268 SCRA 586: The Court reiterated the limitations on the power of eminent domain are that the use must
Yanas v. Acaylar, 136 SCRA 52 be public, compensation must be made and due process of law must be observed. The Supreme Court, taking
Barsobia v. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547 cognizance of such issues as the adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking and the public use character or the
Godinez v. Fong, 120 SCRA 223
Yap v. Grageda, 121 SCRA 244
Pineda v. de la Rama, 121 SCRA 671
Liguez v. CA, 102 Phil 577
purpose of the taking, has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo P. Puruganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and
character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken. Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo, G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 623
F. Doctrines governing interpretation of laws affecting guaranteed rights:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, January 15, 2014.The Void for Vagueness doctrine
determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial function. In the exercise of the Courts essentially Overbreadth doctrine
judicial function of determining just compensation, the RTC-SACs are not granted unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001)
enumerated factors in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR formula (in AO 5-98) that reflect these factors. Courts may, in the exercise of
their discretion, relax the formulas application to fit the factual situations before them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for II. Citizenship
any deviation from the factors and formula that the law and the rules have provided. A. People
The time of taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use and benefit of his 1. Different meanings of words people:
property, as when the State acquires title to the property or as of the filing of the complaint, per Section 4, People as inhabitants, Art.XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to exclude aliens in its territory. The President
NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a private party because of the Philippines is given the discretion to deport aliens who are considered undesirable.
it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property; requisites, how just compensation is determined; relate to the People as citizens, Preamble, Art.II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
Bill of Rights. People as source of sovereignty, Art. VII, Sec. 4
Action on Commissioners Report: Republic v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 191448, November 16, 2011
Compromise Agreement tin Eminent Domain: City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 187604, B. Citizenship under Art. IV and Right of Suffrage under Article V
June 25, 2012 Natural-born citizens Art. IV, Sec. 2
Public Purpose Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.)
Housing for the poor: Ortega v. City of Cebu, 602 SCRA 601 (2009) -President Art. VII, Sec. 2
Taking for a cultural/historical purpose: Manosca v C.A., G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996 - Vice President
When taking is not justified: Masikip v. Pasig City, 497 SCRA 391(2006) - Members of Congress Art. VI, Sections 3 and 6
Just Compensation - Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Art. VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
Principal criterion to determine just compensation: Tinio et al. v. NAPOCOR, G.R. 160923, January 24, 2011 - Ombudsman and his deputies, Art. XI, Sec. 8
Compensation based on R.A. 6657: LBP v. Ferrer et al., G.R. No. 172230, February 2, 2011 - Members of the Constitutional Commission, Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C, Sec. (1); and D, Sec. 1(1)
Recognition of Fair Market Value: EPZA v. Estate of Salud Jimenez, et al., G.R. No. 188995, August 24, 2011 -Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Art. XII, Sec. 20
Interest rate on just compensation: Apo Fruits Corp. et al. v LBP, G.R. No. 164, October 12, 2010 -Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. XIII, Sec. 17 (2)
Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII, Sec.8
3. Power of Taxation: rule on taxation: must be uniform and equitable; Congress to enact a progressive Naturalized citizens under Com. Act No. 473
system of taxation Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In negotiating tax treaties, the underlying When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
particular investment is not taxed by the other country. Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods. First, it sets out the Procedure, Sections 7-8
respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence with regard to certain When decision is executed, Sec. 1
classes of income or capital. Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of source is given a full or limited right to tax together Denaturalization, Sec. 18
with the state of residence. In this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double Citizenship by legislative act
taxation. Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
E. Who are protected by the rights: all citizens, natural-born and naturalized citizens; aliens within the R.A. No. 9225 Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
jurisdiction of the Philippines; both natural and juridical persons Right of Suffrage, Article V
R. A. No. 9189 Overseas Voting Law
Review Article IV, Citizenship, Constitution Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC , 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under the R.A. No. 9189 need not have one year
Board of Medicine v. Ota, 558 SCRA 234(2008), See Art. XII. Sec. 14, para 2 actual physical residence in the Philippines to exercise their right of suffrage.
Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Hon. Felixberto Olalia, et al., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
III. RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: SAFEGUARDS OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION Due Process and Property Rights: Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 169913,
AND NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSES June 8, 2011
b. Due Process and Police Power: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. v. City of Manila, 20
A. Right to Life SCRA 849(1967)
Republic v. Kagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008) Whitelight Corp. v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416(2009)
Gamboa v. P/SSupt. Chan, et al., G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012 c. Due Process and Eminent Domain (Section 9, Article III and Article 18, Article XII)
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 Requirements for exercise of right of expropriation: taking for public purpose and just compensation
Procedural Requirement: Answer required in eminent domain proceedings
B. Due Process Clause (Section1, Article III) City of Manila v. Melba Tan Te, G.R. No. 169263, September 21, 2011
Types of due process: Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process d. Due Process and Non-Economic Liberties: Right to Privacy
Procedural due process distinguished from substantive due process Concept of the Right (Section 3, Article III, Constitution)
>Substantive due process deals with rights vested under legal enactments. Spouses Hing v. Chaoahuy, Sr. and Alllan Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013
>Procedural due process refers to guarantees of fairness in determining any impairment of a right. When may right be invoked
Anti-Wire-Tapping Act (R.A. 4200)
1. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party Privileged Communication
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(Decision); 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution) Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, Hon. Zamora
Hon. Corona v. United Harbor Pilots, G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997 Navarro v. CA and the People of the Philippines August 1999
Alejano v. Cabuhay, 468 SCRA 188(2005)
2. Procedural Due Process Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA (1998)
a. Due process in administrative proceedings
Requisites: Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961 and 187962, April 7, 2010, C. Equal Protection Clause
Read the cardinal rules of due process in administrative proceedings. 1. Definition, Article III, Section1, Constitution
SPO 1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010 2. Conditions for a valid classification
Dr, Fernando A. Melendres, Executive Director of Lung Center of the Philippines v. Presidential Anti- Graft Commission, et al. 3. Basis for classification: age, gender, religion, economic class, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, economic class,
. G.R. No. 163859, August 15, 2012 residence, disability, date of filing/ effectivity of the law
Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012 Mirasol v. DPWH, 490 SCRA 318(2006)
Right to Counsel: Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 569 SCRA 467 (2008)
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689, September 7, 2010 Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130 (2007)
b. Due process in judicial proceedings: Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 169253, Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union, 59 SCRA 54
February 20, 2013 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
c. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings: Spouses Go and Minor Chester Go v. Colegio de San de Letran, et al., Santos v. People 563 SCRA 341(2008)
G.R. No. 169391, October 10, 2012 NAPOCOR v. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006, March 26, 2010
Instances when no notice and hearing are required 4. Standards of Review
Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, Oct. 22, 2012 Prevailing standard used: Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny which establishes a rational connection to
Vivas, on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT Community Bank v. The Monetary Board of the serve legitimate state interest.
BSP and PDIC, G.R. No. 191424, August 7, 2013 Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299
Effect when due process is not observed: Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and Velasco, G.R. No. 157383, August 10, Middle Tier or Intermediate Scrutiny: challenged classification serves important state interest.
2010 Strict Judicial Scrutiny: burden is on the state to prove that classification achieves a compelling state interest.
Right to Counsel: Lumiqued v. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 (1997) Law non-discriminatory on its face but discriminatory in its application: Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth
Instances when no notice and hearing are required Commission of 2010 et al., G.R.Nos.192935 and 193036, December 7, 2010
Anillo v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 534 SCRA 228(2007) Law in relation to other laws: Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA 438 (2009)
Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182267, Aug.28, 2009 5. Economic Equality
Filipino First Policy: classification based on alienage - Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1165 (1957)
3. Substantive Due Process 6. Political Equality
a. Due Process and Property Rights Dilution of voting rights based on residence: Aquino and Robredo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010
Exclusion based on sexual orientation: Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010
 7. Social Equality OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions
Forced resettlement based on ethnicity: Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil., 660 Privilege based on Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 504 (2001)
ethnicity: Cruz v. NCIP, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000 Miller Test on Indecent Speech
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79
D. CONTRACT CLAUSE / NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
1. Concept of Mutual Obligation (Section 10, Article III, Constitution) Roth Test on Obscenity
2. Concept of Vested Right Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
3. Waiver of Right Clear and Present Danger Test
Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006)
Pacific Wide Realty and Development Corp. v. Puerto Azul Land, Inc., G.R. No. 180893, November 25, 2009 Doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and vagueness
Goldenway Merchandising Corporation v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540, March 13, 2013 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., v. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al., G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010

IV. INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND PRESS), FREE ASSEMBLY AND
PETITION, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND THE PRESS)
1. Definition (Section 4, Article III, Constitution)
2. Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth, Enhance Principles of Democracy, Expression of Self- Fulfillment of
Citizens
3. Why State Restricts and Imposes Limitations on Freedom of Expression: Maintenance of Peace, Promotion of
Community Morals, and Protection of Individual Dignity
The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
4. Scope of Freedom of Speech: Verbal Speech (print and broadcast media) and Non-verbal (symbols)
5. Unprotected Speech/Expression and Protected Speech/Expression, distinguished:
a. Unprotected Speech/Expression: General Guidelines, Obscenity, and Incitement to National Security, False or
Misleading Advertisement, Libelous Speech, Hate Speech and Contumacious Speech.
Chavez v. Gonzalez, 545 SCRA 441 (2008) - General Guidelines/State Policy (Four aspects of free speech)
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assn. of the Philippines v. Duque, 553 SCRA 265, 283(2007) Misleading
Advertisement
In re: Macasaet, 561 SCRA 395 Contumacious Speech
b. Protected Speech/Expression: all those excluded from unprotected expression may include utterances critical of
public conduct, ordinary commercial speech, and satirical speech/parody.
Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005) Misuse of Public Funds
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 460 Misconduct of a Public Official
PHCAP v. Duque III, supra, - Ordinary Commercial Speech
c. How Government Restricts Freedom of Expression
Content Based Restrictions distinguished from Content Neutral Restrictions as gleaned
Justice Carpios concurring opinion in Chavez v. Gonzalez, supra:
(i). any content-based prior restraint on PROTECTED expression is unconstitutional.
(ii). only unprotected expression is subject to prior restraint.
(iii). prior restraint presumes that the expression is unconstitutional.
(iv).government has the burden of proof every time it exercises censorship.
Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Corp., 448 SCRA 504 (2001)
d. Standards of Review
e. Libel as a Criminal Offense (Article 354, Revised Penal Code)
Yambot v. Hon. Artemio Tuquero et. al., G.R. No. 169895, March 23, 2011
Fermin v. People, 550 SCRA 132 (2008)
Tulfo v. People, 565 SCRA 283 (2008)
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos, 504 SCRA 638 (2006) Libelous Statement
Binay v. Secretary of Justice, 501 SCRA 312 (2006) - Defamatory Statement
B. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7, Constitution
2. Access to Public Records / Transparency in the Government, Article II, Section 28, Constitution
3. Limitations
CENPEG v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189546, September 21, 2010
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
Neri v. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 (2008)
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010
C. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO SEEK REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FROM GOVERNMENT
Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
IBP v. Mayor Atienza, G.R. No.175241, Feb. 24, 2010
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al., G. R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010
D. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. Right to Strike and the Right to Unionize, Article III, Section 8, Constitution
BPI v. BPI Employees Union- Davao Chapter- Federation of Unions in BPI UNIBank, G.R. No. 164301, august 10, 2010
2. Right of Private Sector Employees and Government Employees, Article III, Section 8, Constitution
SSS v. C.A. 175 SCRA 686 (1989)
Manila Public School Teachers Assn. v. Laguio, Jr., 200 SCRA 343(Feliciano, dissenting)
E. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Separation of Church and State, Article II, Section 6, Constitution
2. Non Establishment of Religion Clause/ Free Exercise Clause/No Religious Test, Art.III, Sec.5, Constitution
3. Separation of Powers, Article VI, Sec.5 (2), and Article IX C, Section 2(5), Constitution
4. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on Ones Beliefs
Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
 Taruc v. De La Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 (2005) > Airport Search: People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA (2000)
INC v. CA 259 SCRA 529 > Moving Vehicle Search: People v. Macarios, G.R. no. 188611, June 16, 2010
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union, supra > Consented Search
> Searches by Private Entities: People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
> Administrative Searches: buildings, vessels, aircrafts
Pollo v. Chairperson Constantino-David, et al., G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

F. Academic Freedom C. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF AMPARO, WRIT OF HABEAS DATA, WRIT OF KALIKASAN
The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. All private educational institutions may 1. Writ of Habeas Corpus Article III, Sections 13 and 15, 1987 Constitution
prescribe its own requirements to maintain the standard of quality of academic quality. 2. Function of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
PTA of St. Mathew Christian Academy et al., v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010) Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article III, Section 18, 1987 Constitution
V. PHYSICAL LIBERTY: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT 4. Function of the Writs of Amparo [A.M. No.07-9-9-12-SC] and Habeas Data [A.M. No.08-1- 16-SC]
FREEDOM TO BE SECURE IN ONES PERSON, HOME AND POSSESSION Melissa C. Roxas v. President Macapagal- Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 189155, September 7, 2010
Noriel Rodriguez v. President Macapagal- Arroyo et al., G.R.No. 193160, November 15, 2011
A. FREEDOM OF ABODE, FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL Canlas v. Napico Homeowners Assn., Inc., 554 SCRA 208 (2008)
1. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6, Article III, Constitution 5. Writ of Habeas Data
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012 Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29,2014
2. Limitations 6. Writ of Kalikasan
Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006) MMDA v. Concerned residents of Manila Bay G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, G. R. No. 182161, December 31, 2009
VI. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND OTHER RIGHTS RELATED TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
B. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Article III, Sections 1, 2 and 3, Constitution A. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
Exclusion of Evidence: Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 388 (1967) 1. Representation before the Courts, Article III, Section 11, Constitution
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012 People v. Hon. Azarraga and Prevendido, G. R. No. 187117, October 12, 2011
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010 2. Costs of Litigation
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales v. People, G.R. 191080, November 21, Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596
2011 SCRA 401 (2009)
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No. 170217, 170694, Re: Request of IBP National Committee on Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and other Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7
December 10, 2012 SC, August 28, 2009
Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R.No. 191023, February 6, 2013
2. Requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest B. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
Yao, Sr. v. People 108 SCRA (2007) 1. Custodial Investigation, Article III, Section 12, Constitution
People v. Nunes, G.R. No. 177148, June 30, 2009 Jesalva v. People, G.R. No. 187725, January 19, 2011
Re: Request of Police Director General Avelino I. Razon for Authority to Delegate the Endorsement of Application for Search 2. History of Miranda Rights/What Rights are Involved
Warrant, 592 SCRA 1 (2009) People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994)
3. Instances of valid warrantless arrest (Review relevant provisions of the Rules on Criminal Procedure) 3. When Miranda Rule applies (Information given while in custody and information is testimonial in nature)
Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 598 SCRA 41 (2009) People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)
4. Valid warrantless searches People v. Jungco, 186 SCRA 714 (1990)
> Search incident to a valid arrest: People v. Ngik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng et al., G.R. No. 180452, January 10, 2011; Buy 4. When Miranda Rule will not apply (Information gathered in non-custodial setting and information given is non-
Bust Operation People v. Buenaventura G.R. No. 184807, November 23, 2011 testimonial in nature)
> The Plain View Doctrine: Fajardo v. People, G.R. no. 190889, January 10, 2011 People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574 (2005) People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)
> Checkpoints: Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989) 5. Right to Independent Counsel and Scope of Waiver, Article III, Section 12(1),
> Stop and Frisk: People v. Dequina et al., G.R. no. 177570, January 19, 2011 Constitution
6. Effect of Involuntary Confessions, Article III, Section 12 (2), (3) and (4), Constitution 3. Requisites of Double Jeopardy
People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011 Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011 4. Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to Evidence
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 March 2010 Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. no. 172777, October 19, 2011
Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745]
F. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
C. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 1. No Detention for Political Beliefs or Aspirations, Article III, Section 18 (1), Constitution
1. Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13, Constitution 2. Exceptions to Involuntary Servitude, Article III, Section 18 (2), Constitution
When Bail is allowed 3. Rational behind the Imposition of Death Penalty, Article III, Section19 (1),
When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4) or a matter of discretion on the Constitution
part of the cour (Rule on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 5) 4. Non-imposition of Excessive Fines, Article III, Section 19 (1), Constitution
Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil., 634 (1945) 5. Prohibition against Cruel and Degrading Punishment, Article III, Section 19(1) and (2), Constitution
Juan Ponce-Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, August 18, 2015 6. Non-Imprisonment for Debt or Poll Tax, Article III, Section 20, Constitution
2. Nature of Criminal Due Process People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses: Bayan Muna v. Romulo and Ople, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011
Criminal Immunity: Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010
Rights involved in Criminal Proceedings, Article III, Section 14(1) and (4)
Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process G. BAN ON EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Presumption of Innocence 1. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law, Article III, Section 22, Constitution
Right to be heard by Himself and Counsel Sufficiency of Information: People v. Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26, 2011
To be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation against Him 2. When Retroactivity of the Law is allowed
Right to Have a Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial Salvador v. Mapa, 539 SCRA 34 (2007)
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face Valeroso v. People, supra
To Have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and the Production of Evidence
in his behalf
3. Speedy Trial v. Speedy Disposition of Cases, Article III, Section16, Constitution
Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, Sr., 356 SCRA 471(2008)
People v. Abulon, 530 SCRA 675
Andaya v. People, 493 SCRA 539 (2007)

D. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

1. When Right may be invoked: in all Criminal Cases, Administrative Cases and Impeachment
2. Transactional Immunity
3. Aspects covered by the Witness Protection Program and Criminal Procedure
Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315 (2005)
Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 202 (2005)

E. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

1. Nature of Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21, Constitution
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tan, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
When right will not apply: Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 1950, February 20, 2013
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January 18, 2011
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v. C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012
2. Situations Covered: Identity of the Act and Identity of Offenses
People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
Loney v. People 482 SCRA 194 (2006)