Dialdas v.

Percides Respondents assailed the validity of the ordinances on the

ground that both violated P.D. 1869, permitting the operation
FACTS: a alien who operated a retail store in Cebu decided to
of casinos centralized and regulated by PAGCOR.
close his Cebu store and transfer it to Dumaguete. RTL (retail
trade law) and Tax Code Sec. 199 were the statutes taken into Petitioners contends that pursuant to the Local Government
consideration in this case. The former authorizes any alien Code, they have the police power authority to prohibit the
who on May 15, 1954 is actually engaged in retail, to continue operation of casino for the general welfare.
to engage therein until his voluntary retirement from such
ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No.
business, but not to establish or open additional stores for
3375-93 are valid exercise of police power.
retail business. The latter provides that any business for which
the privilege tax has been paid may be removed and continued HELD: No. The ordinances violate P.D. 1869, which has the
in any other place without payment of additional tax. character and force of a statute as well as the public policy
expressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain games
ISSUE: whether the transfer by the alien from Cebu to
of chance despite the prohibition of gambling in general.
Dumaguete can be considered as a voluntary retirement from
Ordinances should not contravene a statute because local
business.
councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred
RULING: No. Although the trial court affirmed the question, to them by Congress.
the SC ruled otherwise stating that RTC overlooked the clear
Petition is denied.
provision of Sec. 199.
Almeda v. Florentino
MAGTAJAS VS. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORP.,
INC., digested Law – “the municipal board shall have a secretary who shall
be appointed by it to serve during the term of office of the
GR # 111097 July 20, 1994 (Constitutional Law – Police
members thereof”
Power, Ordinance, Delegated Legislative Power)
Amendment – “the vice-mayor shall appoint all employees of
FACTS: Petitioners opposed the opening of a casino in
the board who may be suspended or removed in accordance
Cagayan de Oro and enacted Ordinance No. 3353, prohibiting
with law”
the issuance of business permit and cancelling existing
business permit to establishment for the operation of casino, Construction of both Law and Amendment – the power of the
and Ordinance No. 3375-93, prohibiting the operation of vice-mayor to make appointment pursuant to the amendatory
casino and providing penalty for its violation. act is limited to the appointment of all employees of the board
other than the board secretary who is to be appointed by the
board itself

1
SITCHON, ET AL. v. AQUINO After some time, Azarcon wrote a letter to the Reg. Dir of BIR stating that while he had
made representations to retain possession of the property of Ancla, he thereby
FACTS : This decision stems from six (6) different suits. All of the petitioners implead relinquishes whatever responsibility he had over the said property since Ancla
Aquino (the City Engineer of Manila) as respondent so that he may be enjoined from surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from him. In his reply, the BIR Reg. Dir. said
causing the demolition of their respective houses situated in different areas along that Azarcon’s failure to comply with the provisions of the warrant did not relieve him
public streets in Manila inasmuch as these constitute public nuisances. All of the from his responsibility.
petitioners occupied the subject parcels of land initially entirely without consent. Along with his co-accused, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the
However, all of them subsequently paid concession fees or damages for the use of the crime of malversation of public funds or property. On March 8, 1994, the
land with the agreement that such payment and consent shall be without prejudice to Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of
an order to vacate. The time came when the City Engineer demanded that petitioners imprisonment ranging from 10 yrs and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to
vacate the occupied streets. Unheeded, he threatened to demolish the houses. 17 yrs, 4 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Petitioner filed a motion for new trial
which was subsequently denied by Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contend that by virtue of arts. 700 and 702, the power to remove public
nuisances is vested in the District Health Officer, not in the City Engineer. Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual
designated by BIR as a custodian of distrained property.
ISSUES: Is there a public nuisance? Does the City Engineer have authority to cause
the abatement of the nuisance? Held: SC held that the Sandiganbayan’s decision was null and void for lack of
jurisdiction.
HELD: There is a public nuisance. This case falls on art. 694 ¶ 4, classifying as a
Sec. 4 of PD 1606 provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It was specified
nuisance the obstruction of free passage of any public highway or street. It is public therein that the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a
because it affects a community or neighbourhood. The constructions in fact constitute private individual is when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co-
nuisances per se, obstructing at all times the streets. As such, the summary removal principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been
of these may be authorized by statute or ordinance. charged with a crime within its jurisdiction.

Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan The Information does no charge petitioner Azarcon of becoming a co-principal,
accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the
Facts: Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Thus, unless the petitioner be proven a public officer,
hauling dirt and ore. His services were contracted by PICOP. Occasionally, he engaged Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged.
the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the former’s
premises. Art. 203 of the RPC determines who public officers are. Granting that the petitioner, in
signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to
take part in an activity constituting public functions, he obviously may not be deemed
authorized by popular election. Neither was he appointed by direct provision of law nor
On May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by BIR
by competent authority. While BIR had authority to require Azarcon to sign a receipt for
commanding one of its Regional Directors to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and
the distrained truck, the National Internal Revenue Code did not grant it power to
other personal property of Jaime Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon and a
appoint Azarcon a public officer. The BIR’s power authorizing a private individual to act
delinquent taxpayer. A Warrant of Garnishment was issued to and subsequently signed
as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public
by accused Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to BIR
officer. Thus, Azarcon is not a public officer.
the property in his possession owned by Ancla. Azarcon then volunteered himself to
act as custodian of the truck owned by Ancla.

2
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos
G.R. No. 113092 September 1, 1994 In 1992, the trial court found the petitioners guilty of violating the Solicitation Permit
Law.

KTA: Solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the
State in the exercise of police power. The State has authority under the exercise of its In this instant case, the petitioners assert among others that the term “religious
police power to determine whether or not there shall be restrictions on soliciting by purpose” is not expressly included in the provisions of the statute, hence what the law
unscrupulous persons or for unworthy causes or for fraudulent purposes. Certainly the does not include, it excludes.
solicitation of contributions in good faith for worthy purposes should not be denied, but
somewhere should be lodged the power to determine within reasonable limits the Issue: Whether or not the phrase “charitable purposes” should be construed in the
worthy from the unworthy. broadest sense so as to include a religious purpose.

Facts: Held/Ratio:

This petition is an appeal on the decision of the Trial Court convicting Centeno and Yco The 1987 Constitution and other statutes treat the words “charitable” and “religious”
for violating P.D. 1564 known as the Solicitation Permit Law when they both solicited separately and independently of each other.
money for the renovation of their chapel without a permit from the DSWD.

In P.D. 1564, it merely stated “charitable or public welfare purposes” which means that
In 1985, the petitioners, officers of Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay, launched it was not the intention of the framers of the law to include solicitations for religious
a fund drive for the renovation of their chapel in Bulacan. purposes. The world “religious purpose” is not interchangeable with the expression
“charitable purpose”.

The petitioners approached and solicited from Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, a resident
of Tikay, a contribution of P1,500.00. The solicitation was made without a permit from The acts of the petitioners cannot be punished under the said law because the law
the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Hon. Angeles filed a does not contemplate solicitation for religious purposes.
complaint against the petitioners for violation of P.D. 1564 known as the Soliciation
Permit Law.
The solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State
in the exercise of police power. However, in the case at bar, considering that
P.D. 1564 provides as follows: solicitations intended for a religious purpose are not within the coverage of Presidential
Decree No. 1564, as earlier demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held criminally liable
Sec. 2. Any person, corporation, organization, or association desiring to solicit or therefor.
receive contributions for charitable or public welfare purposes shall first secure a
permit from the Regional Offices of the Department of Social Services and
Development as provided in the Integrated Reorganization Plan. The decision appealed from is reversed and set aside, and petitioner Martin Centeno
is acquitted of the offense charged.

3
Luis Marcos Laurel vs Hon. Zeus Abrogar Tambunting; US v Genato*), so long as the same is not included in the enumeration of
GR No. 155076 Real Properties under the Civil Code.
January 13, 2009
The only requirement for personal property to capable of theft, is that it be subject to
FACTS appropriation.
Laurel was charged with Theft under Art. 308 of the RPC for allegedly taking, stealing,
and using PLDT's international long distance calls by conducting International Simple Art. 416 (3) of the Civil Code deems “Forces of Nature” which are brought under the
Resale (ISR) – “a method of outing and completing international long-distance calls control of science, as Personal Property.
using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the The appropriation of forces of nature which are brought under control by science can
local/domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined”. PLDT be achieved by tampering with any apparatus used for generating or measuring such
alleged that this service was stolen from them using their own equipment and caused forces of nature, wrongfully redirecting such forces of nature from such apparatus, or
damage to them amounting to P20,370,651.92. using any device to fraudulently obtain such forces of nature.
PLDT alleges that the international calls and business of providing telecommunication
or telephone service are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various
objects of theft. equipment or apparatus to PLDT’s telephone system, through which petitioner is able
to resell or re-route international long distance calls using PLDT’s facilities
ISSUE constituteSubtraction.
WON Laurel's act constitutes Theft
Moreover, interest in business should be classified as personal property since it is
HELD capable of appropriation, and not included in the enumeration of real properties.
Art.308, RPC: Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication or telephone service are
property of another without the latter’s consent. personal property which can be the object of theft under Art. 308 of the RPC. The act
of engaging in ISR is an act of “subtraction” penalized under the said article.
Elements of Theft under Art.308, RPC:
While international long-distance calls take the form of electrical energy and may be
1. There be taking of Personal Property; considered as personal property, the said long-distance calls do not belong to PLDT
2. Said Personal Property belongs to another; since it could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes,
augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex
3. Taking be done with Intent to Gain; communications infrastructure and facilities.
4. Taking be done without the owner’s consent; Since PLDT does not own the said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that
such telephone calls were taken without its consent.
5. No violence against, or intimidation of, persons or force upon things
What constitutes Theft is the use of the PLDT's communications facilities without
Personal Property – anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in Real PLDT's consent. The theft lies in the unlawful taking of the telephone services &
Property businesses.
Thus, the term “personal property” as used in Art.308, RPC should be interpreted in The Amended Information should be amended to show that the property subject of the
the context of the Civil Code's definition of real and personal property. theft were services and business of the offended party.
Consequently, any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or
incorporeal, capable of appropriation may be the subject of theft (*US v Carlos; US v

4
SIAN TRANSMISSION CORPPORATION VS. CA whether or not daily-paid employees are entitled to be paid for two regular holidays
which fallon the same day
425 SCRA 478. March 15, 2004
RULING:
FACTS: The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through Undersecretary
Cresenciano B.Trajano, issued an Explanatory Bulletin, wherein it clarified, that Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that
employees are entitled to 200% of theirbasic wage, which, apart from being Good the Stateshall afford protection to labor. Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution
Friday, and, therefore, a legal holiday, is also of the monthly incomeof the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words,
although the worker is forced to take arest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his
Araw ngKagitingan, holiday pay.” It is also intended to enable the worker toparticipate in the national
which is also a legal holiday, even if unworked. Despite the explanatory bulletin, celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical andcultural
petitionerAsian Transmission Corporation opted to pay its daily paid employees only significance.Independence Day (June 12),
100% of their basic Araw ng Kagitingan
pay.Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested. In acc
ordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining (April 9),National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August), Bonifacio Day(November 30)
Agreement existing between petitioner and BATLU,the controversy was submitted for and Rizal Day (December 30) were declared national holidays toafford Filipinos with a
voluntary arbitration. The Office of the Voluntary Arbitratorrendered a decision recurring opportunity to commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people,promote
directing petitioner to pay its covered employees "200% and not just 100% of national identity, and deepen the spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a day
theirregular daily wages for the unworked.In deciding in favor of the Bisig ng Asian traditionally reserved to celebrate the contributions of the working class to the
Transmission Labor Union (BATLU), the VoluntaryArbitrator held that Article 94 of the development of the nation, while thereligious holidays designated in Executive Order
Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular holiday, thecomputation of which No. 203 allow the worker to celebrate his faith with hisfamily.As reflected above, Art.
is determined by a legal formula which is not changed by the fact that there aretwo 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, afford a worker the enjoyment of 12paid regular
holidays falling on one day; and that that the law, as amended, enumerates 12 regular holidays. The provision is mandatory, regardless of whether an employee is paid on
holidays forevery year, and should not be interpreted as authorizing a reduction to nine amonthly or daily basis.Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of 12 paid regular
the number of paid regularholidays "just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in certain holidays, the fact that two
years, is also Holy Friday or MaundyThursday."The Court of Appeals upheld the
findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator, holding that the CollectiveBargaining Agreement holiday’s fall onthe same date should not operate to reduce to 11 the 12 holiday pay
between petitioner and BATLU, the law governing the relations between them,clearly benefits a worker is entitled toreceive.It is elementary, under the rules of statutory
recognizes their intent to consider construction, that when the language of the law isclear and unequivocal, the law must
be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at bar, there isnothing in the law
Araw ng Kagitingan which provides or indicates that the entitlement to 12 days of holiday pay shall
bereduced to 11 when two holidays fall on the same day.In any event, Art. 4 of the
and Maundy Thursday, on whatever datethey may fall in any calendar year, as paid Labor Code provide that all doubts in the implementation andinterpretation of its
legal holidays during the effectivity of the CBA and that "thereis no condition, provisions, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved infavor
qualification or exception for any variance from the clear intent that all holidays shall of labor. For the working m an’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount
becompensated.The Court of Appeals further held that "in the absence of an explicit consideration.Moreover, Sec. 11, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules to Implement
provision in law whichprovides for [a] reduction of holiday pay if two holidays happen the Labor Code provides that"Nothing in the law or the rules shall justify an employer
to fall on the same day, any doubt in theinterpretation and implementation of the Labor in withdrawing or reducing any benefits,supplements or payments for unworked regular
Code provisions on holiday pay must be resolved infavor of labor."Hence, this petition. holidays as provided in existing individual or collectiveagreement or employer practice
ISSUE: or policy. From the pertinent provisions of the CBA entered into by theparties, petitioner
had obligated itself to pay for the legal holidays as required by law.
5
6