J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0051: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA VS. JUDGE ROLANDO MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY (A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2369, [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 12-3907-RTJ])

HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. JOSE ROBERTO F. PO VS. JUDGE ROLANDO MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY   (A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2372 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3736-RTJ])

(26 JULY 2016, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT: GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: DOJ AND HDMF VS. JUDGE MISLANG)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds Judge Rolando G. Mislang, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 167, GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law in A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 and A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372 and ORDERS his DISMISSAL from the service with FORFEITURE of retirement benefits, except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

DELFIN LEE FACED 2 DOJ CASES. HE FILED A PETITION FOR INJUNCTION (WITH APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TRO) AGAINST THE DOJ, WHICH WAS RAFFLED TO THE SALA OF JUDGE MISLANG.  LEE SOUGHT TO SUSPEND THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED BY THE DOJ IN THE 2ND DOJ CASE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, TO LIKEWISE PREVENT THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN THE 1ST DOJ CASE. THE PARTIES, WITH THE PERMISSION OF JUDGE MISLANG, THEN AGREED TO SUBMIT FOR RESOLUTION THE PETITION FOR INJUNCTION UPON SUBMISSION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE MEMORANDA WITHIN FIFTEEN ( 15) DAYS. HOWEVER  AFTER LEE HAD SUBMITTED HIS MEMORANDUM, THE FOLLOWING DAY HE FILED AN UNVERIFIED URGENT MOTION FOR THE EX-PARTE RESOLUTION OF HIS APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TRO. WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE DOJ’S MEMORANDUM, JUDGE MISLANG ISSUED ORDERS DATED AUGUST 16, 2011 AND AUGUST 26, 2011, GRANTING LEE’S PETITION. WAS   THE ACTION OF JUDGE MISLANG PROPER?

HE VIOLATED DOJ’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO DUE PROCESS.

WHAT OTHER QUESTIONABLE EVENTS/ACTS ATTENDED THE CASE?

JUDGE MISLANG NEVER CONDUCTED A HEARING ON EITHER THE APPLICATION FOR TRO OR ON THE MOTION FOR RESOLUTION OF THE TRO.

ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION FOR TRO WAS CONTAINED IN A VERIFIED PETITION, THE DOJ WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION OR THE URGENT MOTION FOR HEARING.

DOJ  WAS NOT LIKEWISE SERVED WITH ANY NOTICE OF HEARING. AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF PROOF OF SERVICE, JUDGE MISLANG STILL PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE APPLICATION FOR TRO AGAINST THE 1ST DOJ CASE DURING THE HEARING ON THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE 2ND DOJ CASE.

JUDGE MISLANG RULED THERE WAS A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST DOJ CASE. WAS HIS RULING CORRECT?

 NO.

 BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL ACTION WAS FILED AHEAD OF THE CIVIL ACTION WHICH LEE USED AS BASIS FOR HIS MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF  THE EXISTENCE OF A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.

THE RULE ON PREJUDICIAL QUESTION IS: THE CIVIL ACTION MUST BE INSTITUTED PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION.

WHAT IS GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?

IT IS THE DISREGARD OF BASIC RULES AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE.

IS EVERY JUDICIAL ERROR BESPEAKS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?

NO, IF COMMITTED IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF TOLERABLE MISJUDGMENT.

WHEN IS THERE GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?

WHERE THE LAW IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THE FACTS SO EVIDENT, FAILURE TO KNOW IT OR TO ACT AS IF ONE DOES NOT KNOW IT CONSTITUTES GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.

WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION ON THE JUDGE’S PERFORMANCE OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS?

HE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE ACTED WITH REGULARITY AND GOOD FAITH?

WHEN IS THIS PRESUMPTION SET ASIDE?

WHEN HE COMMITS A BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE, AS WELL AS SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS ENJOINING THEIR STRICT COMPLIANCE.

WHEN HE WAS MOVED BY BAD FAITH, DISHONESTY, HATRED, OR SOME OTHER LIKE MOTIVE.

WHY ARE JUDGES EXPECTED TO KNOW THE LAW?

JUDGES ARE EXPECTED TO EXHIBIT MORE THAN JUST CURSORY ACQUAINTANCE WITH STATUTES AND PROCEDURAL LAWS.

THUS, UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE RULES IS A SIGN OF INCOMPETENCE. BASIC RULES MUST BE AT THE PALM OF HIS HAND.

WHEN A JUDGE DISPLAYS UTTER LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE RULES, HE BETRAYS THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS THE MAINSPRING OF INJUSTICE.

JUDGES OWE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE, HENCE, THEY ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE MORE THAN JUST A MODICUM OF ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE STATUTES AND PROCEDURAL RULES; THEY MUST KNOW THEM BY HEART.
 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0051-JUDGE MISLANG 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0050: THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY,  v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V. MAJARUCON,  (G.R. 205728, 05 JULY 2016, LEONEN, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.

 SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 This Court’s Decision discussed that the tarpaulin consists of satire of political parties that “primarily advocates a stand on a social issue; only secondarily-even almost incidentally-will cause the election or nonelection of a candidate.”34 It is not election propaganda as its messages are different from the usual declarative messages of candidates. The tarpaulin is an expression with political consequences, and “[t]his court’s construction of the guarantee of freedom of expression has always been wary of censorship or subsequent punishment that entails evaluation of the speaker’s viewpoint or the content of one’s speech.”35

We recognize that there can be a type of speech by private citizens amounting to election paraphernalia that can be validly regulated.36 J However, this is not the situation in this case. The twin tarpaulins consist of  a social advocacy, and the regulation, if applied in this case, fails the reasonability test.

Lastly, the regulation is content-based. The Decision discussed that “[t]he form of expression is just as important as the information conveyed that it forms part of the expression[,]”38 and size does matter. 39”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0050-DIOCESE OF BACOLOD

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0049: RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, WIGBERTO E. TANADA, FRANCISCO “DODONG” NEMENZO, JR., SR. MARY JOHN MANANZAN, PACIFICO A. AGABIN, ESTEBAN “STEVE’: SALONGA, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., EVALYN G. URSUA, EDRE U. OLALIA, DR. CAROL PAGADUANARAULLO, DR. ROLAND SIMBULAN, and TEDDY CASINO,  v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, JR., DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, and ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA,  (G.R. 212426)

 BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR., BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES NERI J. COLMENARES, and  CARLOS ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES LUZ ILAGAN AND EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, ACT TEACHERS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE FERNANDO HICAP, KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE TERRY RIDON, MAKABA YANG KOALISYON NG MAMAMA YAN (MAKABAYAN), REPRESENTED BY SATURNINO OCAMPO, and LIZA MAZA, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, RAFAEL MARIANO, SALVADOR FRANCE, ROGELIO M. SOLUTA, and CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, v. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY PIO LORENZO BATINO, AMBASSADOR LOURDES YPARRAGUIRRE, AMBASSADOR J. EDUARDO MALAYA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDERSECRETARY FRANCISCO BARAAN III, and DND ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS RAYMUND JOSE QUILOP AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE NEGOTIATING PANEL FOR THE PHILIPPINES ON EDCA, (G.R. No. 212444)

 KILUSANG MA YO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ELMER LABOG, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT FERDINAND GAITE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MA YO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT JOSELITO USTAREZ, NENITA GONZAGA, VIOLETA ESPIRITU, VIRGINIA FLORES, and ARMANDO TEODORO, JR.,( G.R. Nos. 212426 & 212444) 

 (26 July 2016, SERENO, CJ.) (MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE EDCA) (BRIEF TITLE: SAGUISAG ET AL. VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the Motion for Reconsideration.

 SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

To recall, the Philippines and the U.S. entered into the MDT in 195157 with two things in mind, first, it allowed for mutual assistance in maintaining and developing their individual and collective capacities to resist an armed attack;58 and second, it provided for their mutual self-defense in the event of an armed attack against the ten-itory of either party.59 The treaty was premised on their recognition that an anned attack on either of them would equally be a threat to the security of the other.

The EDCA embodies this very purpose. It puts into greater effect a treaty entered into more than 50 years ago in order to safeguard the sovereignty of the Philippines, and cement the military friendship of the U.S. and Philippines that has thrived for decades through multiple presidents and multiple treaties. While it is a fact that our country is now independent, and that the 1987 Constitution requires Senate consent for foreign military bases, troops, and facilities, the EDCA as envisioned by the executive and as formulated falls within the legal regime of the MDT and the VF A.

In the context of recent developments, the President is bound to defend the EEZ of the Philippines and ensure its vast maritime wealth for the exclusive enjoyment of Filipinos. In this light, he is obligated to equip himself with all resources within his power to command. With the MDT and VFA as a blueprint and guide, EDCA strengthens the Armed Forces of the Philippines and through them, the President’s ability to respond to any potential military crisis with sufficient haste and greater strength.

The Republic of Indonesia is strengthening its military presence and defences in the South China Sea.61 Vietnam has lent its voice in support of the settlement of disputes by peaceful means62 but still strongly asserts its sovereignty over the Paracel islands against China. 63 The international community has given its voice in support of the tribunal’s decision in the UN CLOS arbitration. 64

Despite all this, China has rejected the ruling.65 Its ships have continued to drive off Filipino fishermen from areas within the Philippines’ EEZ. 66 Its military officials have promised to continue its artificial islandbuilding in the contested areas despite the ruling against these activities.67

In this light, the Philippines must continue to ensure its ability to prevent any military aggression that violates its sovereign rights. Whether the threat is internal or external is a ·matter for the proper authorities to decide. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has declared, in his inaugural speech, that the threats pervading society are many: corruption, crime, drugs, and the breakdown of law and order. 68 He has stated that the Republic of the Philippines will honor treaties and inten1ational obligations. 69 He has also openly supported EDCA’s continuation.70

Thus, we find no reason for EDCA to be declared unconstitutional. It fully conforms to the Philippines’ legal regime through the MDT and VFA. It also fully conforms to the government’s continued policy to enhance our military capability in the face of various military and humanitarian issues that may arise. This Motion for Reconsideration has not raised any additional legal arguments that warrant revisiting the Decision.  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0049-EDCA

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.