Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
BOARD OF OPTOMETRY VS. COLET
G.R. No. 122241, July 30, 1996
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 8050, entitled “An Act Regulating the Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating Optometrists, and for Other Purposes,” otherwise known as the Revised Optometry Law of 1995, was approved into law on 7 June 1995.
On 31 July 1995, the private respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a petition for declaratory relief and for prohibition and injunction, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order. Private respondents alleged in their petition that:
When the petition (docketed as Civil Case No. 95-74770) was examined, it was found out that it merely listed the names of the alleged presidents as well as their profession and home addresses of Optometry Practitioner Association of the Philippines (OPAP); Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA); Association of Christian-Muslim Optometrist (ACMO); and Southern Mindanao Optometrist Association of the Philippines (SMOAP). They failed to indicate the details as to the juridical personality and addresses of these alleged associations, except for Acebedo Optical Co., Inc.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the private respondents have locus standi to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8050; and
Whether or not they have a valid cause of action for either declaratory relief or prohibition.
HELD:
1. Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action, and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. By failing to provide juridical details in their petition, they cannot therefore claim that they are juridical entities. Consequently, they are deemed to be devoid of legal personality to bring an action.
Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court - a real party in interest is a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
2. An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory. It cannot be disputed that there is yet no actual case or controversy involving all or any of the private respondents on one hand, and all or any of the petitioners on the other, with respect to rights or obligations under R.A. No. 8050. This is plain because Civil Case No. 95-74770 is for declaratory relief.
The private respondents have not sufficiently established their locus standi to question the validity of R.A. No. 8050. The conclusion then is inevitable that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the implementation of R.A. No. 8050.
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 8050, entitled “An Act Regulating the Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating Optometrists, and for Other Purposes,” otherwise known as the Revised Optometry Law of 1995, was approved into law on 7 June 1995.
On 31 July 1995, the private respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a petition for declaratory relief and for prohibition and injunction, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order. Private respondents alleged in their petition that:
- There were surreptitious and unauthorized insertion and addition of provisions in the Reconciled Bill which were made without the knowledge and conformity of the Senate panel;
- R.A. No. 8050 derogates and violates the fundamental right of every Filipino to reasonable safeguards against deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process of law;
- R.A. No. 8050 derogates and violates the principle against undue delegation of legislative power;
- R.A. No. 8050 suppresses truthful advertising concerning optical goods and services in violation of the guaranty of freedom of speech and press; and
- R.A. No. 8050 employs vague ambiguous terms in defining prohibitions and restrictions, hence, it falls within the ambit of void-for-vagueness doctrine which safeguards the guaranty of due process of law.
When the petition (docketed as Civil Case No. 95-74770) was examined, it was found out that it merely listed the names of the alleged presidents as well as their profession and home addresses of Optometry Practitioner Association of the Philippines (OPAP); Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA); Association of Christian-Muslim Optometrist (ACMO); and Southern Mindanao Optometrist Association of the Philippines (SMOAP). They failed to indicate the details as to the juridical personality and addresses of these alleged associations, except for Acebedo Optical Co., Inc.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the private respondents have locus standi to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8050; and
Whether or not they have a valid cause of action for either declaratory relief or prohibition.
HELD:
1. Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action, and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. By failing to provide juridical details in their petition, they cannot therefore claim that they are juridical entities. Consequently, they are deemed to be devoid of legal personality to bring an action.
Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court - a real party in interest is a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
2. An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory. It cannot be disputed that there is yet no actual case or controversy involving all or any of the private respondents on one hand, and all or any of the petitioners on the other, with respect to rights or obligations under R.A. No. 8050. This is plain because Civil Case No. 95-74770 is for declaratory relief.
The private respondents have not sufficiently established their locus standi to question the validity of R.A. No. 8050. The conclusion then is inevitable that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the implementation of R.A. No. 8050.