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 foun...
Lim v. Pacquing
GR No. 115044, January 27, 1995 - 240 SCRA 649
FACTS:
Sec 3 of the Presidential Decree No. 771 expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling facilities (including the jai-alai) issued by local governments.
Judge Pacquing had earlier issued the following orders which were assailed by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim:
ISSUE:
Whether or not PD 771 is constitutional. Lim v. Pacquing
Read: Brillantes v. Concepcion
HELD:
Yes. PD No. 771 is valid and constitutional.
The time-honored doctrine is that all laws (PD No. 771 included) are presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this Court. Not only this; Article XVIII Section 3 of the Constitution states:
Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADC's franchise by reason of the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Court's First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution.
And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADC's possession of a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents. Lim v. Pacquing
Also refer to - Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90
Consequently, in the light of the foregoing expostulation, we conclude that the republic (in contra distinction to the City of Manila) may be allowed to intervene in G.R. No. 115044.
Read: Estrada v. Arroyo
The Republic is intervening in G.R. No. 115044 in the exercise, not of its business or proprietary functions, but in the exercise of its governmental functions to protect public morals and promote the general welfare. Lim v. Pacquing
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 115044, January 27, 1995 - 240 SCRA 649
FACTS:
Sec 3 of the Presidential Decree No. 771 expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling facilities (including the jai-alai) issued by local governments.
Judge Pacquing had earlier issued the following orders which were assailed by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim:
- order directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the permit/license to operate the jai-alai in favor of Associated Development Corporation (ADC).
- order directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for non-compliance with the order dated 28 March 1994.
- order reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim to immediately issue the permit/license to Associated Development Corporation (ADC). Lim v. Pacquing
ISSUE:
Whether or not PD 771 is constitutional. Lim v. Pacquing
Read: Brillantes v. Concepcion
HELD:
Yes. PD No. 771 is valid and constitutional.
The time-honored doctrine is that all laws (PD No. 771 included) are presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this Court. Not only this; Article XVIII Section 3 of the Constitution states:
Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed, altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the executive still exercised legislative powers). Lim v. Pacquing
Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADC's franchise by reason of the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Court's First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution.
And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADC's possession of a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents. Lim v. Pacquing
Also refer to - Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90
Consequently, in the light of the foregoing expostulation, we conclude that the republic (in contra distinction to the City of Manila) may be allowed to intervene in G.R. No. 115044.
Read: Estrada v. Arroyo
The Republic is intervening in G.R. No. 115044 in the exercise, not of its business or proprietary functions, but in the exercise of its governmental functions to protect public morals and promote the general welfare. Lim v. Pacquing
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment