Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


CASE 2014-0022: THE DECISION ON THE RH LAW CASE (G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, 204957,204988,205003, 205043,205138,205478, 205491, 205720,206355, 207111, 207172 & 207563) (08 APRIL 2014, MENDOZA, J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

 

1] Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;

 

2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

 

3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life- threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

 

4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures.

 

5] Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

 

6] Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

 

7] Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation; and

 

8] Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier “primarily” in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

 

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as extended by its Order, dated July 16, 2013, is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the provisions of R.A. No. 10354 which have been herein declared as constitutional.

 

SO ORDERED.”


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

 

SCD-2014-0022-APR 2014-RH LAW

 

 

CASE 2014-0021: MACARIA ARGUELLES AND THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PETRONIO ARGUELLES, PETITIONERS, – VERSUS MALARAYAT RURAL BANK, INC., PROMULGATED: RESPONDENT. (G.R. NO. 200468, __ MARCH 2014, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) (BRIEF TITLE: ARGUELLES VS. MALARAYAT RURAL BANK)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 19, 2011 and Resolution dated February 6, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92555 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated July 29, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, of Taal, Batangas, in Civil Case No. 66 is REINSTATED and UPHELD.

 

No pronouncement as to costs.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

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

 

 

SCD-2014-0021-MAR 2014-ARGUELLES

CASE 2014-0020: FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., PETITIONER, – VERSUS – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 189434) IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, PETITIONER , – VERSUS – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 189505) (12 MARCH 2014, SERENO, CJ) SUBJECT/S: THE NATURE OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS (SHORT TITLE: MARCOS VS REPUBLIC)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 April 2012 filed by petitioners Imelda Romualdez-Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. are hereby DENIED with FINALITY.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE SANDIGANBAYAN DOES NOT POSSESS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR THE ARELMA PROCEEDS, WHICH ARE HELD BY MERRILL LYNCH IN THE UNITED STATES.   DOES THE PHILIPPINE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE RES WHICH IS IN THE U.S.?

 

YES. TO RULE OTHERWISE CONTRAVENES THE INTENT OF THE FORFEITURE LAW, AND INDIRECTLY PRIVILEGES VIOLATORS WHO ARE ABLE TO HIDE PUBLIC ASSETS ABROAD: BEYOND THE REACH OF THE COURTS AND THEIR RECOVERY BY THE STATE

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS?

 

FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS ARE ACTIONS CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS IN REM OR QUASI IN REM.

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

HOW IS JURISDICTION OVER THE REM ACQUIRED?

 

JURISDICTION OVER THE RES IS ACQUIRED EITHER

 

(A) BY THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER LEGAL PROCESS, WHEREBY IT IS BROUGHT INTO ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE LAW; OR

 

(B) AS A RESULT OF THE INSTITUTION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, IN WHICH THE POWER OF THE COURT IS RECOGNIZED AND MADE EFFECTIVE.

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

IN THE CASE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, MUST THE PROPERTY BE IN THE ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE COURT?

 

NO. POTENTIAL CUSTODY IS SUFFICIENT.

 

In the latter condition, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court.9   The concept of potential jurisdiction over the res, advanced by respondent, is not at all new. As early as Perkins v. Dizon, deciding a suit against a non-resident, the Court held: “In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law.”

 

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

 

SCD-2014-0020-MAR 2014-MARCOS

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers