Significant Decisions under Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo

THREE years under the leadership of Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the Supreme Court promulgated Decisions that uphold the people's fundamental rights; protect national security; promote social welfare; balance the interests of the economy, labor and consumers and cleanse the ranks of judges, lawyers and court personnel. Right to life, liberty and securityIn Deduro v. Vinoya, the court declared that red-tagging, vilification, labelling and guilt by association threaten a person's right to life, liberty or security, which entitles one to protection under the writ of amparo. The writ of amparo also protected victims of violence such as the widow of a victim of a drug related extralegal killing in Tabian v. Gonzales and the abducted environmental advocates in Castro v. Dela Cruz.The same protective remedy was issued by the court in Sanchez v. Darroca to prohibit the police from surveilling a family over their suspected association with the New People's Army. Free speechIn ABS-CBN Corp. v. Ampatuan, Jr., the court established the boundaries for speech by participants in legal proceedings and streamlined the guidelines for when to enforce the subsequent punishment of indirect contempt. It also included speech made through social media as the fourth category of regulated speech, acknowledging the impact of fake news circulated through social media on public confidence in the judiciary and its enforcement of justice.In St. Anthony College of Roxas City v. Commission on Elections (Comelec), the court ruled that Comelec does not have the authority to remove or destroy privately owned campaign materials displayed on private property, as these are considered political speech of private individuals which Comelec is not authorized to regulate under existing laws.The court in People v. Soliman reminded courts that they may impose the alternative penalty of a fine instead of imprisonment for the crime of cyber libel. Right to privacyIn Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Purisima and Jacinto-Henares, the court upheld the right to privacy of professionals and their clients, invalidating a regulation by the Bureau of Internal Revenue that required self-employed professionals to submit their rates and register appointment books to monitor their tax compliance.Environmental rightsUsing its exclusive power to promulgate rules concerning the protection of constitutional rights, the court in Concerned Citizens of Sta. Cruz, Zambales v. Paje upheld the people's right to a balanced and healthful ecology, setting aside the Court of Appeal's (CA) dismissal of a petition for writ of kalikasan to halt mining activities in Zambales and Pangasinan to prevent irreparable environmental destruction.In PTK2 H20 Corp. v. CA, the court stressed that given the extraordinary nature of the writ of kalikasan, the reliefs enumerated in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases are non exhaustive and nonexclusive. Other remedies may be granted to ensure the permanent discontinuation of environmentally harmful acts.Gender equalityUpholding the right to equal protection of the laws, the court ruled in Jacinto v. Fouts that the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act protects all women, including women in lesbian relationships.In XXX v. People, the court ruled that marital infidelity is a form of psychological violence penalized by the Anti-VAWC Act. The court also reminded a judge and a prosecutor in Yokogawa-Tan v. Tan to use gender fair language in the courtroom, consistent with promoting gender equality in the Judiciary. Thus, for misogynistic, sexist, abusive and repeated intemperate language, the court disbarred a lawyer in AC no. 13521, while a group of lawyers was suspended in AM no. 21-06-20-SC for homophobic posts made on social media.Due processTo ensure fair prosecution, the court ensured strict observation of due process. In People v. Valencia, the court held that a minimal change in the receipts recording the movement of seized drugs is fatal to the integrity of the chain of custody in drug cases.The court also clarified in People v. Casa that the seizure and marking, including the physical inventory and photograph taking, of the seized drug must be done immediately at the place of arrest. Should the police deviate from this procedure, they must show justifiable reasons and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were maintained, as stressed in People v. Uy.In Nisperos v. People, the court held that in warrantless arrests from buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present "at or near" the place of arrest to comply with the law's requirement that the inventory should be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation.In Guinto v. Department of Justice, the court nullified the Justice Department's implementing rules for excluding persons convicted of heinous crimes from the benefits of the New Good Conduct Time Allowance law. Access to JusticeTo ensure indigent Filipinos' access to free legal assistance, the court — in the New Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — prohibited the Public Attorney's Office from invoking conflict of interest in cases where one of the parties had already engaged its assistance. In De Guzman-Lara v. Comelec and Mamba, the court clarified that, as technological advances now allow electronic filings, filings by email may be made even beyond office hours — so long as they are within the day.The court also issued guidelines for the bench and the bar on the issuance of administrative warrants, prosecution of criminal tax law violations, plea-bargaining process in drugs cases and legal standing of private offended parties in questioning criminal orders.National securityUpholding the government's duty to serve and protect the people, the court in Calleja v. Executive Secretary ruled on the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Social welfareMindful of scientific developments and the contemporary circumstances of Filipinos, the court abandoned the restrictive interpretation of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullification of marriage. In Tan-Andal v. Andal, the Court ruled that as psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder but rather a legal concept. The testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not required. In Republic v. Ng, the court ruled that in divorces obtained by foreign spouses, the Filipino spouse is entitled to the recognition of the divorce in the Philippines if said divorce is valid according to the foreign spouse's national law. Protecting children's welfare, the court in CICL XXX v. People set guidelines to streamline the process for determining discernment in crimes involving children in conflict with the law, recognizing there is a different standard in determining a minor's culpability for crimes.In People v. XXX, the court applied the theory on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome in determining the credibility of child rape victims.In Dolera v. SSS, the court voided the provision in the Social Security Act, which disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the pensioner's legitimate spouse only after the latter suffers permanent total disability.Upholding the state policy in favor of safe, reliable, efficient and eco-friendly public utility vehicles, the court in Bayyo Association Inc. v. Tugade denied the petition to nullify the Transportation Department's Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program.The court also affirmed in Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines v. Manila City the exclusive power of the Manila Metropolitan Development Authority to enforce traffic laws, rules and regulations over local governments in Metro Manila.National economyIn Initiative for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services Inc. v. Senate, the Court upheld the validity of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, ruling that it does not facilitate the indiscriminate importation of hazardous and toxic wastes in the Philippines.However, the court in Ocampo v. Macapagal-Arroyo voided the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking by and among China National Offshore Oil Corp., Vietnam Oil and Gas Corp. and Philippine National Oil Co., involving an area in the South China Sea covering 142,886 square kilometers. The court found it unconstitutional for allowing wholly owned foreign corporations to participate in the exploration of the country's natural resources without observing the safeguards provided in Section 2, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution.Affirming the State's power to levy taxes not only to sustain the government's operations, but to pursue progress and meet the needs of the times, the court upheld the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act in Tinio v. Duterte.Supporting micro, small and medium enterprises, the court in Icebergs Food Concepts Inc. v. Filipino Society of Composes, Authors and Publishers Inc. (Filscap) recommended that exemptions for small businesses be considered by Congress in addition to the existing limitations in copyright infringement cases under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.The court also upheld the intellectual property rights of artists in Filscap v. Anrey, ruling that playing radio broadcasts containing copyrighted music through the use of loudspeakers is considered a performance and violates copyright. In Ginebra San Miguel Inc. v. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, the court ruled that public perception is the ultimate factor in determining whether a word is generic, such that if the consuming public primarily associates a particular term to a specific producer with its goods or services, then such term cannot be considered generic for purposes of trademark registration.LaborConsistent with state policy to provide full protection to labor, the court in Halagueña v. Philippine Airlines Inc. voided a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provision that sets the mandatory retirement age lower for female than male cabin attendants for discriminating against women.The court also found the dismissal of an employee solely for testing positive for Human immunodeficiency virus discriminatory, ruling that such termination is illegal in Bison Management Corp. v. AAA.In Escauriaga v. Fitness First Phil. Inc., the court stressed that the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor and not a regular employee, ruling that a gym's fitness trainers were regular employees given that the factors in establishing an employer-employee relationship were present.In South Cotabato Integrated Port Services Inc. v. Montefalco Jr., the court held that the employer's non remittance of collected union member dues by virtue of a checkoff provision in the CBA constitutes unfair labor practice.In C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa, the court clarified that illegally dismissed probationary employees, like regular employees, are entitled to backwages up to their actual reinstatement and not only until the end of their probationary period.It also set guidelines in Bunayog v. Foscon Shipmanagement Inc. to govern disability benefit claims where the seafarer requests for a third doctor referral.Consumer rightsTo protect consumers' rights, the court held in Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. v. Yu that at least 48 hours' prior written notice is required before the disconnection of electric supply. The same applied to the increase in Mass rapid transit and Light-rail transit fares, which needed prior notice and hearing before they can become effective, as held in Syjuco v. Abaya.In Universal Robina Corp. v. Department of Trade and Industry, the court upheld the prohibition on profiteering under the Price Act, ruling that the provision in the law does not give law enforcers unbridled power and that what constitutes reasonable price is a question of fact that can be determined based on the circumstances.The court also upheld in Republic v. Pryce the rights of senior citizens, clarifying that interment services are covered by the 20 percent discount on funeral and burial expenses under the Senior Citizens Act.Cleansing the bench and the BarReminding all court personnel to always act above board and beyond suspicion to earn and keep the public's respect for the Judiciary, the Court dismissed three CA employees in AM no. CA-23-001-P for testing positive for shabu for the second time.In Office of the Court Administrator v. Reyes, the court dismissed a judge for gross misconduct after finding messages on his laptop asking for bribes from lawyers and litigants in exchange for favorable action on cases before him.The court also enlisted the help of the National Bureau of Investigation in A.M no. 24-05-21-SC, upon an anonymous tip that a court employee and judge are engaging in bribery. Following an entrapment operation, the court ordered the preventive suspension of a Pasay City judge and an acting branch clerk of court to ensure an unhampered formal investigation. In Vasquez-Abad v. Alamada-Magayanes, another judge was dismissed by the court for falsification of official documents and serious dishonesty for making false certifications and misappropriating her staff's salaries.Applying the same exacting standards to officers of the court, the court in AAA v. Ruiz disbarred a lawyer for economic and emotional abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act after refusing to provide support for his children.