KABILING ET AL VS NHA CO VS PNB

Facts: LOZANO VS MARTINEZ

Petitioners' are among the landowners whose FACTS:
title to their respective lots have already been
transferred to respondent NHA pursuant to the This is a consolidated case, the petition arose
provisions of P.D. No. 1808. Wherein said from cases involving prosecution of offenses
petitioners assailed the constitutionality of P.D . under the BP 22 also known as Bouncing Check
No. 1808. Alleging that said P.D . No. Law. The defendant in these case moved
1808 deprives them of their property without seasonably to quash the information on the
due process of law and without just ground that the acts charged did not constitute
compensation and of their right to protection of an offense, the statute being unconstitutional.
the laws. They further alleged that their The motions were denied by the respondent
properties are not the proper subject of trial court, except in one case, which is the
expropriation by the government. subject of G.R No. 75789, wherein the trial court
declared the law unconstitutional and
dismissed the case. The parties adversely
Issue/s: affected have come to the court for remedy.
Those who question the constitutionality of the
1. Is P.D. No. 1808 unconstitutional due to the said statute insist the following ground:
deprivation of due process and just
compensation? 1) It offends the constitutional provision
forbidding imprisonment for debt;
2) it impairs freedom of contract;
Ruling:
3) it contravenes the equal protection clause;
The petitioners' challenge to the 4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive
constitutionality of P.D. No. 1808 cannot be powers; and
sustained. The objective of the decree, 5) its enactment is flawed in the sense that
namely, to resolve the land tenure problem in during its passage the interim Batasan violated
the Agno-Leveriza area to allow the the constitutional provision prohibiting to a bill
implementation of the comprehensive on Third Reading.
development plans for this depressed
community, provides the justification for the
exercise of the police power of the State. The ISSUE:
police power of the State has been described
as "the most essential, insistent and illimitable of Whether or not BP 22 or the Bouncing Check
powers. It is a power inherent in the State, Law is unconstitutional.
plenary, "suitably vague and far from precisely
defined, rooted in the conception that man in
organizing the state and imposing upon the RULING:
government limitations to safeguard
constitutional rights did not intend thereby to No, the enactment of the assailed statute is a
enable individual citizens or group of citizens to valid exercise of Police power and is not
obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such repugnant to the constitutional inhibition
salutary measure to ensure communal peace, against imprisonment for debt. It may be
safety, good order and welfare. constitutionally impermissible for the legislature
to penalize a person for non-payment of debt
Petitioners also cannot complain that they are
ex contractu, but certainly it is within the
being deprived of their property without due prerogative of the lawmaking body to prescribe
process of law and just compensation since certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to
Sec. 3 of P.D. No. 1808 provides for just public welfare. Acts mala in se are not only acts
compensation to lot owners who have fully paid which the law can punish. An act may not be
their obligations to the City of Manila under their considered by society as inherently wrong,
respective contracts before the issuance of the hence, not malum in se, but because of the
decree, and while including petitioners harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be
Robidante L. Kabiling, et al. to those have not outlawed and criminally punished as malum
yet claimed the compensation for their prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise
respective lots. of its police power.
The motion for reconsideration was DENIED.
The enactment of the said statute is a
declaration by the legislature that, as a matter
of public policy, the making and issuance of a
CLEMENTS VS NOLTING
worthless check is deemed a public nuisance to instituted an action to recover the balance
be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions. due, the interest due and the attorney's fees.
The enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of
the police power and is not repugnant to the properties mortgaged in accordance with
the constitutional inhibition against law. Esteban claims that this is a prewar
imprisonment for debt. The gravamen of the obligation contracted and that he is a war
offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making sufferer, having filed his claim with the
and issuing a worthless check or a check that is Philippine War DamageCommission for the
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. losses he had suffered as a consequence of
It is not the non-payment of an the last war; and that under section 2 of RA
obligation which the law punishes. The law is 342(moratorium law), payment of his obligation
not intended or designed to coerce cannot be enforced until after the lapse of
a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is eight years. The complaint was dismissed. A
to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the motion for recon was made which assails the
making of worthless checks and putting them constitutionality of RA 342.
in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects
on the public interest, the practice is
proscribed by the law. The law punishes the Issue: Whether or Not RA 342 unconstitutional
act not as an offense against property, but an on non-impairment clause grounds.
offense against public order.

Unlike a promissory note, a check is not a mere Held: Yes. The moratorium is postponement of
undertaking to pay an amount of money. It is fulfillment of obligations decreed by the state
an order addressed to a bank and partakes of through the medium of the courts or
a representation that the drawer has funds on the legislature. Its essence is the application of
deposit against which the check is drawn, police power. The economic interests of the
sufficient to ensure payment upon its State may justify the exercise of its continuing
presentation to the bank. There is therefore an and dominant protective power
element of certainty or assurance that the notwithstanding interference with contracts.
instrument will be paid upon presentation. For The question is not whether the legislative
this reason, checks have become widely action affects contracts incidentally, or directly
accepted as a medium of payment in trade or indirectly, but whether the legislation is
and commerce. Although not legal tender, addressed to a legitimate end and the
checks have come to be perceived as measures taken are reasonable and
convenient substitutes for currency in appropriate to that end.
commercial and financial transactions. The
basis or foundation of such perception is However based on the President’s general
confidence. If such confidence is shaken, the SONA and consistent with what the Court
usefulness of checks as currency substitutes believes to be as the only course dictated by
would be greatly diminished or may become justice, fairness and righteousness, declared
nil. Any practice therefore tending to destroy that the continued operation
that confidence should be deterred for the and enforcementof RA 342 at the present time
proliferation of worthless checks can only is unreasonable and oppressive, and should
create havoc in trade circles and the banking not be prolonged should be declared null and
community void and without effect. This holds true as
regards Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32, with
RUTTER VS ESTEBAN
greater force and reason considering that said
Facts: On August 20,1941 Rutter sold to Esteban Orders contain no limitation whatsoever in
two parcels of land situated in the Manila for point of time as regards the suspension of
P9,600 of which P4,800 were paid outright, and the enforcement and effectivity of monetary
the balance was made payable as follows: obligations.
P2,400 on or before August 7, 1942, and P2,400
ILUSORIO VS CAR
on or before August 27, 1943, with interest at
the rate of 7 percent per annum. To secure the ORTIGAS VS FEATI BANK
payment of said balance of P4,800, a first
mortgage has been constituted in favor of the Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate
plaintiff. Esteban failed to pay the business, developing and selling lots to the
two installments as agreed upon, as well as the public, particularly the Highway Hills Subdivision
interest that had accrued and so Rutter along EDSA. On March 4, 1952, plaintiff, as
vendor, and Augusto Padilla and Natividad GANZON VS INSERTIO
Angeles, as vendees, entered into separate
agreements of sale on installments over two
FACTS:
parcels of land of the Subdivision. On July 19,
Petitioner Rodolfo Ganzon executed a deed of
1962, the said vendees transferred their rights absolute sale of a parcel of land in favor of
and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of private respondents. Several months later, a
one Emma Chavez. Upon completion of deed of real estate mortgage was executed
payment of the purchase price, the plaintiff between the same parties to secure the
executed the corresponding deeds of sale in payment by the private respondents of a
favor of Emma Chavez. Both the agreements promissory not in favor of petitioner. Private
(of sale on installment) and the deeds of sale respondents filed a civil action against
contained the stipulations or restrictions that: petitioners after Ganzon initiated extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings in accordance with
1. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively the terms and conditions of the said mortgage.
Respondent judge ordered the substitution of
for residential purposes, and she shall not be
the mortgage lien with a surety bond.
entitled to take or remove soil, stones or gravel
from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller. ISSUE(S):
2. All buildings and other improvements Whether or not the order of respondent judge
(except the fence) which may be constructed violates the non-impairment clause of the
at any time in said lot must be, (a) of strong Constitution.
materials and properly painted, (b) provided
with modern sanitary installations connected RULING:
either to the public sewer or to an approved YES. Substitution of the mortgage with a surety
bond to ensure the payment of a loan would
septic tank, and (c) shall not be at a distance
in effect change the terms and conditions of
of less than two (2) meters from its boundary
the mortgage contract. Even before trial on
lines. the very issues affecting the contract, the
respondent court has directed a deviation
Eventually said lots were bought by defendant. from its terms, diminished its efficiency and
Lot 5 directly from Chavez and Lot 6 from dispensed with a primary condition.
Republic Flour Mills by deed of exchange, with
same restrictions. Plaintiff claims that restriction Instant petition si GRANTED. Orders of the trial
is for the beautification of the subdivision. court are SET ASIDE
Defendant claimed of the commercialization
of western part of EDSA. Defendant began
constructing a commercial bank building. DEL ROSARIO VS DE LOS SANTOS
Plaintiff demand to stop it, which forced him to
ABELLA VS NLRC
file a case, which was later dismissed,
upholding police power. Motion for recon was FACTS
denied, hence the appeal.
PETITIONER Abella leased a farmland from
Ramona for a period of 10 years and
Issue: Whether or Not non-impairment clause renewable for another 10 years at the option
violated. of the former. Abella hired the private
respondents Quitco and Dionele. Abella
renewed the lease for another ten years. At
Held: No. Resolution is a valid exercise of police the expiration of the lease, she dismissed both
power. EDSA, a main traffic artery which runs private respondents and turned over the
through several cities and municipalities in the hacienda to the owners. Private respondents
Metro Manila area, supports an endless stream filed a complaint against petitioner. for
of traffic and the resulting activity, noise and overtime pay, reinstatement, and illegal
pollution are hardly conducive to the health, dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the
safety or welfare of the residents in its route. dismissal was warranted by the cessation of
Health, safety, peace, good order and general business, but the respondents are entitled to
welfare of the people in the locality are separation pay, invoking Art. 284 of the Labor
justifications for this. It should be stressed, that Code, as amended.
while non-impairment of contracts is
constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not ISSUE
absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the Whether or not private respondents are
legitimate exercise of police power entitled to separation pay.
 greater number of employees who can avail
RULING of the benefits under the law, which is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the
The Court upheld the ruling of the Labor Arbiter State to give maximum aid and protection to
that Article 284 is the applicable law in this labor.ers to employment benefits to farm
case. Art 284, as amended ref FACTS hands who were not parties to petitioner's
lease contract with the owner of Hacienda
Danao-Ramona. That contract cannot have
PETITIONER Abella leased a farmland from the effect of annulling subsequent legislation
Ramona for a period of 10 years and designed to protect the interest of the working
renewable for another 10 years at the option class.
of the former. Abella hired the private It is well-settled that in the implementation and
respondents Quitco and Dionele. Abella interpretation of the provisions of the Labor
renewed the lease for another ten years. At Code and its implementing regulations, the
the expiration of the lease, she dismissed both workingman's welfare should be the primordial
private respondents and turned over the and paramount consideration. It is the kind of
hacienda to the owners. Private respondents interpretation which gives meaning and
filed a complaint against petitioner. for substance to the liberal and compassionate
overtime pay, reinstatement, and illegal spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of
dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the the New Labor Code which states that "all
dismissal was warranted by the cessation of doubts in the implementation and
business, but the respondents are entitled to interpretation of the provisions of this Code
separation pay, invoking Art. 284 of the Labor including its implementing rules and regulations
Code, as amended. shall be resolved in favor of labor." The policy is
to extend the applicability of the decree to a
greater number of employees who can avail
ISSUE of the benefits under the law, which is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the
Whether or not private respondents are State to give maximum aid and protection to
entitled to separation pay. labor.

RULING PVBEU VS PVB

The Court upheld the ruling of the Labor Arbiter

that Article 284 is the applicable law in this
case. Art 284, as amended refers to
employment benefits to farm hands who were
not parties to petitioner's lease contract with
the owner of Hacienda Danao-Ramona. That
contract cannot have the effect of annulling
subsequent legislation designed to protect the
interest of the working class.

It is well-settled that in the implementation and

interpretation of the provisions of the Labor
Code and its implementing regulations, the
workingman's welfare should be the primordial
and paramount consideration. It is the kind of
interpretation which gives meaning and
substance to the liberal and compassionate
spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of
the New Labor Code which states that "all
doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code
including its implementing rules and regulations
shall be resolved in favor of labor." The policy is
to extend the applicability of the decree to a