Calalang vs Williams, Constitutional Law Digest

September 9, 2008

G.R. No. 47800.  December 2, 1940

MAXIMO CALALANG, petitioner, vs. A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., respondents.Maximo Calalang in his own behalf.

The case of Calalang vs Williams is known for the elegant exposition of the definition of social justice.  In this case, Justice Laurel defined social justice as “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy” but humanization of laws and equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

As I browse through the entire case, I found out that there is more to this case than the definition of social justice.  In fact, another important issue raised here is whether there was a valid delegation of power by the National Assembly to the Director of Public Works.  Let us begin with the facts of the case.

Facts:

In pursuance of Commonwealth Act 548 which mandates the the Director of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on such roads and streets  to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads, the Director of Public Works adopted the resolution of the National Traffic Commission, prohibiting the passing of animal drawn vehicles in certain streets in Manila.  

Petitioner questioned this as it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power.

Issues: 

Whether or not there is a undue delegation of legislative power? (more…)

Attempted Robbery

September 7, 2008

PNB vs. Ramon Maza and Francisco Macenas, Negotiable Instrument Digest

GR. No. 24224, Nov. 3, 1925

PNB vs. Ramon Maza and Francisco Macenas 

Facts:

Maza and Mecenas executed promissory notes for the Philippine National Bank.  Upon maturity, the notes were not taken up by the defendants.  For this, PNB instituted an action against the two to recover payments. 

As defense, they raised that they are not real party in interest.  They argued that it was Enrique Echaus who should be liable as they merely filled up the notes upon the request of the latter.  They point to Enrique as the one who negotiated it to PNB, that they never received any value thereof.  Lower court found them jointly and severally liable for the negotiable instrument. 

Issue:

Whether the defendants are liable for the promissory note?

Ruling:

Yes.  Whether they are principals with Enrique their agent or mere accommodation parties, they are still liable.  Under Civil Code 1727, the principals must fulfill their obligations, as makers they must keep their engagement and must pay as promised.  Their liability on the instruments is primary and unconditional. 

If they are accommodation parties, under the law, the defendants as accommodation parties having signed the instrument without receiving value therefore and for the purpose of lending his name to some other persons, are still liable on the instruments.  The law now is that the accommodation party can claim no benefit as such, but he is liable according to the face of his undertaking, the same as if he were himself financially interested in the transaction. 

It maybe properly remarked that when the accommodation parties make payment to the holder of the notes, they have the right to sue the accommodated party for reimbursement, since the relation between them is in effect that of principal and sureties, the accommodation parties being the sureties.  

Town Savings and Loan Bank vs CA, Negotiable Instrument Digest

GR No. 10611, June 17, 1993

Town Savings and Loan Bank vs CA

Facts:

In 1983, the Hipolitos applied for and were granted a loan in the amount of Php 700,000.00 with interest of 24% P.A. for which they executed and delivered to Town Savings Loan Bank a promissory note with maturity period of 3 years and with acceleration clause.  Thy defaulted, subsequently, demand for payment were sent to them.

The Hipolitos denied being personally liable on the Php 700,000.00 promissory note which they executed.  The loan was allegedly for the account of Pilarita H. Reyes, the sister of Miguel Hipolito.  She was the real party-in-interest.  They argued that they are mere guarantors and not as accommodation party, not having received any part of the loan. 

Issue:

Whether or not the Hipolitos are accommodation party?

Ruling: Yes.  Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, an accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, indorser, without receiving value therefore and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person.  Such person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, not withstanding such holder, at the time of the taking of the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party.  In lending his name to the accommodated party, the accommodation party is in effect a surety for the latter.  He lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money.  He receives no part of the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other parties thereto because he wants to accommodate another.

In the case at bar, there is no question that the private respondent signed the promissory note in order to enable Pilarita to borrow money from TSLB.  As observed by both the trial and appellate court, the actual beneficiary was Pilarity Reyes and no other.   The Hipolitos accommodated her by signing a promissory note for half of the loan that she applied for because TSLB may not lend any single borrower more than the authorized limit of its loan portfolio.  Under Section 29 of NIL, the Hipolitos are liable to the bank on the promissory note that they signed to accommodate Pilarita. 

Benwaren vs Comelec, Election Law Digest

September 2, 2008

G.R. No. 169393TONY L. BENWAREN vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDWIN CRISOLOGO,                                

AZCUNA, J.:

Facts:

Petitioner Tony L. Benwaren and private respondent Edwin Crisologo were candidates for the position of Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Tineg, Abra in the May 2004 elections.

During the canvass of the election return of Precinct No. 16A, counsel for petitioner objected to the inclusion of the election return on the ground that the same was allegedly prepared under duress, force or intimidation,  or was prepared by persons other than the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) concerned.

The MBC deferred the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position of Municipal Mayor because it contended that the contested election return from Precinct No. 16A would affect the result of the election for the position.  To speedily settle and put an end to the controversy reconstitution of the MBC with new members, to, among others, determine if the identity and integrity of the said ballot box and the ballots  contained therein were not violated; and, proceed to recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare a new election return for the  said precinct; and then canvass the said return and proclaim the winning candidate/s; or

During the examination of the election return, the MBC found that the integrity of the ballot box was violated as it was left unattended and was never delivered to its proper custodian.  The ballots were not also placed in properly sealed or placed in enveloped prepared by Comelec.

The New MBC proclaimed private respondent Crisologo as the duly elected mayor of Tineg, Abra based on the results of the remaining uncontested election returns.

Due to the unfavorable result, Benwaren filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation or to Suspend the Effects Thereof and Petition to Declare Illegal [the] Proceedings of the New Board of Canvassers of Tineg, Abra.

In a Resolution dated February 18, 2005, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the petition for lack of merit, declaring the New MBC was specifically mandated by it to determine whether the identity and integrity of the ballot box for Precinct No. 16A and its ballots were violated.  Thus, it held that the matter was left to the sound discretion of the members of the New MBC, which complied with its order.  It added that the New MBC is presumed to have regularly performed its official duty absent a strong proof to the contrary by petitioner.

Petitioner filed a a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
 
(more…)