CASES FACTS
In re: Application of Max Shoop
Max Shoop -applying for admission to practice law in
the Phil under Paragraph 4 of Rules for
November 29, 1920 the Examination of Candidates for
Admission to the Practice of Law
-his application shown was he was
practicing for more than law for more
than 5 years in the highest court of State
of New York
In New York State:
-by comity
-it confers the privilege of admission w/o
examination under similar circumstances
to attys admitted to practice in the Phil
-additional requirement is: satisfactory
affidavits of applicants must show they
have practiced at least 5 YEARS in any
(district, circuit, or highest court) of US
or territory of it
-admission still in the discretion of the
court
Rule of New York court:
-permits admission w/o examination in
the discretion of the Appellate
Division in several cases:
1. Provided that the applicant
practiced 5 years as a member
of the bar in the highest law
court in any other state or
territory of the American Union
or in the District of Columbia
2. The Applicant practiced 5 years
in another country whose
jurisprudence is based on the
principles of the English
Common Law (ECL)
ISSUE
Whether or not the NY rule as
it exists the principle of comity
is established
RULING
Philippines
-is an UNORGANIZED TERRITORY of the US, under a civil gov’t
established by the Congress
-in interpreting and applying the bulk of the written laws of this
jurisdiction, and in rendering its decisions in cases NOT covered by the
letter of the written law:
o Court relies upon theories and precedents of Anglo-American
cases s.t. limited exception of those instances where the
remnants of the Spanish written law present WELL-
DEFINED civil law theories; and
o Of the few written cases where such precedents are
INCONSISTENT w/ local customs
-the JURISPRUDENCE of this jurisdiction is based upon ECL in its
present day form of Anglo-American Common Law to an almost
exclusive intent
In New York:
-it permits conferring privileges on attys admitted to practice in the
Phils. Similar to those privileges accorded by the rule of this court
DECISION: Granted it is based on the interpretation of the NY rule;
doesn’t establish precedent w/ respect to future applications
REASON:
ON TERRITORY:
a. Comity would exist if we are a territory of the US
b. We are NOT an organized territory incorporated into the US;
BUT
c. We are NOT a “foreign country” or “another country”
d. Like Puerto Rico: we may not be incorporated but we are a
territory since the US Congress legislates for us and we have
been granted a form of territorial gov’t (to that extent WE
ARE A TERRITORY according to US Atty. Gen.)
e. Not believed that NY is intended the word “territory” to be
limited to technical meaning of organized territory or it
would have been used the more accurate expression
THEREFORE: we have a basis of comity to satisfy the first reqt since
the full phraseology indicates a SWEEPING INTENTION to include
ALL of the territory of the US
ON COMMON LAW JURISDICTION:
(On what principles are the present day jurisprudence is based?)
 a. In most of the States (including NY) codification and statute
law have come to be a very large proportion of the law of the
jurisdiction
o The REMAINING PROPORTION being a system
of case law has its roots (mostly) in the old English
cases
b. In speaking of a jurisprudence “based on the English
Common Law” it would seem proper to say that the of a
particular jurisdiction is based upon the principles of
COMMON LAW if its statute law and its case law to a very
large extent INCLUDES the science and application of law
as laid down by the old English cases, as perpetuated and
modified by the American cases

COMMON LAW ADOPTED BY DECISION:

a. In the US, the ECL is blended w/ American codification and
remnants of the Spanish and French Civil Codes
b. Common Law may become the basis of the jurisprudence of
the courts where practical considerations and the effect of
sovereignty gives round for such a decision
c. In the Philippines: ECL principles is embodied in Anglo-
American jurisprudence and are used and applied by the
courts to the extent that Common Law principles are NOT in
conflict w/ the LOCAL WRITTEN laws, customs, and
institutions and there is NO OTHER FOREIGN case law
system used to any substantial extent,
d. IN THE SENSE OF NEW YORK RULE: Philippines is
based on ECL

What we have is a PHILIPPINE COMMON LAW influenced by the

ECL or American Common Law.

The chief codes of Spain that were extended to us were as follows:

Penal Code, Code of Commerce, Ley Provisional, Code of Criminal
Procedure, and Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Code, Marriage Law,
Mortgage Law, Railway laws, Law of Waters

There was no properly called Case Law of Spain since Spanish

jurisprudence does not recognize the principle of Stare Decisis.

All Spanish laws, customs, and rights of property inconsistent with the
Constitution and American principles and institutions were superseded

It appears that the bulk of present day Statute Law is derivative from
Anglo-American sources; derivative in a sense of having been

Serrano vs. Gallant Antonio Serrano
Maritime Services -hired by Gallant Maritime Services and
Marlow Navigation
-on the date of the departure: was
constrained to accept a downgraded
employment contract to SECOND
OFFICER and an assurance that he
would be made as CHIEF OFFICER
Gallant and Marlow
-did not deliver on their promise
-Serrano refused to stay and repatriated in
the Phil
-employment contract indicated: 12
months
-time of repatriation: served only 2
months and 7 days
Serrano filed to Labor Arbiter for
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
-awarded him a lump-sum of salary for 3
months of unexpired portion of his
employment contact
-questioned CONSTITUTIONALITY of
Secition 10 RA 8042
-limited OFWs entitlement in case of
illegal dismissal
-impairs CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
to negotiate in terms of their contract.
Deprives equal protection, and denies due
process
NLRC affirmed corrected the
computation of salary
CA affirmed NLRC; did not rule to
consti issue
COPIED, and in the sense of having been enacted by Congress or by
virtue of its authority.
There is a prolific use of Anglo-Am authorities in the decisions of the
court, plus, the available sources for study and reference on legal
theories are mostly Anglo-Am
SC to exercise its power of judicial review:
1. Actual case or controversy
2. Raised by proper party
3. At the earliest opportunity
4. Is very lis mota of the case
In the case: ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE under Section 10, Article 2 is aligned
w/ general principle that laws newly enacted have PROSPECTIVE
OPEATION
The enactment of RA 8042 PRECEDED the execution of employment
contract between the two parties
-they were deemed to have incorporated all the provisions of the said
law
All private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures
taken by the State to
promote public welfare.
5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional
for it violates the rights of OFWs
to equal protection
Congress has power to incorporate a system of classification into its
legislation. However, to be valid, the classification
must comply with these requirements:
1) it is based on substantial distinctions;
2) it is germane to the purposes of the law;
3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and
4) it applies equally to all members of the class.
3 LEVELS OF SCRUTINY at which the Court reviews the
constitutionality of a classification
embodied in a law:
1. deferential or rational basis scrutiny- classification needs
only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate
state interest;
 2. middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny- government must show
that the challenged classification serves an important state
interest and that the classification is at least substantially
related to serving that interest
3. strict judicial scrutiny- impermissibly interferes with the
exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class
- upon the government to prove that the classification is
necessary to
achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least
restrictive means to protect such interest

EMPLOOYMENT OF STRICT JUDICIAL SCRUTINY:

FIRST CATEGORY:
- OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of less than one year
and in case of illegal dismissal
- they are entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion of
their contract

SECOND CATEGORY:
-consists of OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of one year
or more and in case of illegal dismissal,
- entitled to monetary award equivalent to only 3 months of the
unexpired portion of their contracts

enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042:

- singling out one category whose contracts have an unexpired portion
of one year or more
-subject them to having their monetary awards limited to their salaries
for 3 months
-PREJUDICE B/C THE CONTRACT FALL SHORT OF ONE YEAR

There can never be a justification for any form of government action

that alleviates the burden of one sector,
but imposes the same burden on another sector
-ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DISADVANTAGED IS: OFWs whose
protection no less than the Constitution commands
- clause violates not just petitioner's right to equal protection, but also
her right to substantive due process

Serrano is entitled to his salaries for the entire

unexpired period of nine months and 23 days of his employment
contract.
Angara vs. Electoral 1935 election
Commision -provincial board of canvassers
proclaimed: JOSE A ANGARA as
member-elect of NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY for the 1st assembly district
of Province of Tayabas
Pedro Ynsua file Motion to Protest and
prayed that he be declared elected
member of NA for the district
Angara: Motion to Dismiss the Protest
b/c it out of the prescriptive period
Ynsua: no legal or constitutional
provision barring the presentation of
protest against the election of a member
of NA
Elecom: DENIED ANGARA’S
MOTION
Angara: filed to the SC petition for
issuance of writ of prohibition
-Elecom has no jurisdiction
-contends that under the Consti: power to
regulate the proceedings of
said election contests has been reserved
to the Legislative Department (the
National Assembly)
Sol Gen w/ Elecom: take cognizance of
election protests filed within the time that
might be set by its own rules
Whether or not the Elecom act
in excess of its jurisdiction
taking cognizance of the
protest filed against Angara
notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of his election by
resolution of the
National Assembly?
Whether or not the SC have
jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission and the subject
matter of the
controversy
Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the government.
1. Chief Executive under our Constitution is so far made a
check on the legislative power that this assent is required in
the enactment of laws
- is subject to the further check that a bill may
become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to
approve it, by a vote of two-thirds or
three-fourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly.
2. President has also the right to convene the Assembly in
special session whenever he chooses
3. National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in
the sense that its consent through its Commission on
Appointments is necessary in the appointment of certain
officers;
4. power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court
shall be established, to define their jurisdiction and to
appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly
controls the judicial department to a certain extent.
5. Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying
impeachments.
6. Judiciary checks other by determining law to be
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
does not assert any superiority over the other departments
- only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the
Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the
Constitution
Court has jurisdiction over Electoral Commission
- for the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the
constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.
 Electoral Commission (Electoral tribunal) exercises exclusive
jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the legislative members
- Section 4 of Article VI of the Constitution provides: The
Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National
Assembly.

Electoral Commission is independent and distinct from the legislative

body
- is a constitutional creation

The Electoral Commission has power to promulgate the rules necessary

for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all election
contests

Confirmation by the legislature of the election of its members cannot

deprive the Electoral Commission of the authority to judge election
contests and, corollary to it, to fix the time for the
filing of election protests:
-Resolution 8 confirming the election of members against whom no
protest can not be construed as a limitation upon the time for the
initiation of election contests.

-the Electoral Commission was acting within the legitimate exercise of

its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the
protest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua against the election of the
herein petitioner Jose A. Angara
- the resolution of the National Assembly of
December 3,1935 can not in any manner toll the time for filing protests
against the election, returns and qualifications of members of the
National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time
as the rules of the Electoral Commission might prescribe.
Sameer Oversees Joy Cabiles With respect to the rights of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), the
Placement Agency -applied for quality control job in Taiwan principle of lex loci contractus governs
vs. Cabiles w/ the said company (recruitment and - Security of tenure for labor is guaranteed by our Constitution
placement agency) - Employees are not stripped of their security of tenure when they
-asked to sign 1 year employment move to work in a different jurisdiction
contract for a salamary of - With respect to the rights of overseas Filipino workers, we follow the
NT$15,360.00.8 principle of lex loci contractus.
-agency required her to pay for placement - the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and other
fee of P70,000.00 laws affecting labor apply in this case b/c the contact of employment
-after arrival to Taiwan she worked as A was perfected here in the Phil
CUTTER not as quality control
-w/o prior notice (Mr. Huwang from
Warcoal) terminated her and order her to
get her salary and passport
-was asked to prepare for repatriation
-she only earned NT$9,000
-filed a complain w/ NLRC: b/c of illegal
dismissal; asked for the return of her
placement fee
Sameer Agency: termination was due to
her inefficiency; negligence; failure to
comply w/ reqts to employer
-the Wacoal was already substituted by
Pacific Manpower
Labor Arbiter: DISMISSED the
complaint
NLRC: Joy was illegally dismissed
-no proof of just causes of termination
- awarded Joy only three months worth of
salary in the amount of NT$46,080, the
reimbursement of the NT$3,000 withheld
from her, and attorney’s fees of
NT$300.46
CA: affirmed
SC: dissatisfied Sameer Agency filed a
petition w/ SC
Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may only be terminated for a just or
authorized cause and after compliance with procedural due process
requirements
Article XIII, Section 3, Constitution:
-to allow foreign employers to determine for and by themselves
whether an overseas contract worker may be dismissed on the ground
of illness would encourage illegal or arbitrary pretermination of
employment contracts
- By our laws, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may only be
terminated for a just or authorized cause
and after compliance with procedural due process requirements.
Just causes of termination Article 282 of the Labor Code
a. Serious misconduct or wilful disobedience
b. Gross and habitual negligence of duties
c. Fraud willfull breach
d. Commission of a crime or offense
e. Other causes
To shoe the there is inefficiency there must have:
1. Set standards of conduct and workmanship basis of the
employer
2. Former must have been communicated to the employee
3. Communication must be at a reasonable time
Joy's dismissal was illegal
-burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the
employer
-merely allegation
The employer, Wacoal, failed to accord her due process of law
- The employer is required to give the charged employee at least two
written notices before termination.
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042: Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995
- “shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with
interest of twelve (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.”
Republic Act No. 10022 was promulgated on March 8, 2010. This
means that the reinstatement of the clause in Republic Act No. 8042
was not yet in effect at the time of respondent Joy’s termination from

Manila Prince Hotel GSIS under Phil Gov’t Proclamation 50
vs. GSIS decided to sell through public bidding
30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of
Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC)
-2 bidders: Manila Prince Hotel Corp
(Filipino corp offered 51% offered 41.58
pesos per share); Renong Berhad
(Mlaaysian firm same bif w/ 44 pesos per
share)
RENONG BERHAD WON the bid
Manila Prince invokes:
-Sec. 10, second paragraph, Art. XII, of
the 1987 Constitution
- submits that the
work in 1997. Republic Act No. 8042 before it was amended by
Republic Act No. 10022 governs this case.
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 states that “repatriation of the
worker and the transport of his [or her] personal belongings shall be the
primary responsibility of the agency which recruited or deployed the
worker overseas.”
When a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with
the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or
reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision
We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime that limiting
wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas
worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal
protection clauses of the Constitution
-the provision on joint and several liability in
the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 shifts the
burden of going after the foreign employer from the overseas worker to
the local employment agency
-HOWEVER the local agency that is held to answer for the overseas
worker’s money claims is not left without
Remedy
- law does not preclude it from going after the foreign employer for
reimbursement of whatever payment it has made to the employee to
answer for the money claims against the foreign
employer.
Constitutional Supremacy
- constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and
unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates
DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY: if a law or
contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract
whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or
entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and
without any force and effect
- Since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme
law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.
National patrimony
-patrimony pertains to heritage
-when the Constitution speaks of “national patrimony,” it refers not
only to the natural resources of the Philippines but also to
Manila Hotel has been identified with the
Filipino nation and has practically
become a historical monument of
Philippine heritage and culture
- since 51% of the shares of the MHC
carries with it the ownership of the
business of the
hotel which is owned by GSIS
- the hotel business of GSIS being a part
of the tourism industry is unquestionably
a part of the national economy
the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
- Nationalism is inherent in the very concept of the Philippines being a
democratic and republican state, with sovereignty residing in the
Filipino people and from whom all government authority emanates
- Protection of foreign investments, while laudible, is merely a policy.
- cannot override the demands of nationalism
Manila Hotel has become a landmark- a living testimonial of
Philippine heritage
- become part of our national economy and patrimony
- Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then
become the venue of various significant events which have shaped
Philippine history
Filipino First policy is Self-Executory
Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
- mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which
needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement.
-When the Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, privileges,
and concessions covering national economy and patrimony:
o State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos
o qualified Filipinos shall be preferred