1. Ynot vs IAC, 148 SCRA 659
FACTS:
8
In 1980 President Marcos amended Executive Order No. 626-A which orders that no carabao and
carabeef shall be transported from one province to another; such violation shall be subject to
confiscation and forfeiture by the government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other
similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit for
the carabeef and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see
fit in the case of the carabaos.
On January 13, 1984, Petitioner’s 6 carabaos were confiscated by the police station
commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for having been transported from Masbate to Iloilo in
violation of EO 626-A. He issued a writ for replevin, challenging the constitutionality of said
EO. The trial court sustained the confiscation of the animals and declined to rule on the validity of
the law on the ground that it lacked authority to do so. Its decision was affirmed by the IAC.
Hence, this petition for review filed by Petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not police power is properly enforced
HELD:
NO. The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of the police power
which both restraints and is restrained by due process. The police power is simply defined as the
power inherent in the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the
general welfare. As long as the activity or the property has some relevance to the public welfare, its
regulation under the police power is not only proper but necessary. In the case at bar, E.O. 626-A
has the same lawful subject as the original executive order (E.O. 626 as cited in Toribio case) but
NOT the same lawful method. The reasonable connection between the means employed and the
purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing. The challenged measure is an
invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not
reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive.
2. Beltran vs. sec. of Health, GR 133640, Nov 25, 2005
Same; Same; Same; Police Power; Requisites; The promotion of public health is a fundamental obligation of the State—
the health of the people is a primordial governmental concern; In serving the interest of the public, and to give meaning to
the purpose of the law, the Legislature deemed it necessary to phase out commercial blood banks—this action may
seriously affect the owners and operators, as well as the employees, of commercial blood banks but their interests must
give way to serve a higher end for the interest of the public.—The promotion of public health is a fundamental obligation
of the State. The health of the people is a primordial governmental concern. Basically, the National Blood Services Act
was enacted in the exercise of the State’s police power in order to promote and preserve public health and safety. Police
power of the state is validly exercised if (a) the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, requires the interference of the State; and, (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the
objective sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In the earlier discussion, the Court has
mentioned of the avowed policy of the law for the protection of public health by ensuring an adequate supply of safe
blood in the country through voluntary blood donation. Attaining this objective requires the interference of the State given
the disturbing condition of the Philippine blood banking system. In serving the interest of the public, and to give meaning
to the purpose of the law, the Legislature deemed it necessary to phase out commercial blood banks. This action may
seriously affect the owners and operators, as well as the employees, of commercial blood banks but their interests must
give way to serve a higher end for the interest of the public.
FACTS
Republic Act No. 7719 or the National Blood Services Act of 1994 was enacted into law on April 2, 1994. The
Act seeks to provide an adequate supply of safe blood by promoting voluntary blood donation and by regulating
blood banks in the country. This act took effect on August 23, 1994. AO No. 9, Series of 1995, constituting
the IRR of said law was promulgated by respondent DOH Secretary, Section 7 of R.A. 7719 provides
Phase-out of Commercial Blood Banks – All commercial blood banks shall be phased-out over a period of two
(2) years after the effectivity of this Act, extendable to a maximum period of two (2) years by the Secretary.
Section 23 of Administrative Order No. 9 provides Process of Phasing Out. — The Department shall effect
the phasing-out of all commercial blood banks over a period of two (2) years, extendible for a maximum
period of two (2) years after the effectivity of R.A. 7719. The decision to extend shall be based on the result of a
careful study and review of the blood supply and demand and public safety.
Hence, petitioners were granted by the Secretary of Health their licenses to open and operate a blood bank only until
May 27, 1998. BUT prior to the expiration of the licenses granted to petitioners, they filed a petition for certiorari
with application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, assailing the
constitutionality and validity of the aforementioned Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
ISSUE: Whether the law is a valid exercise of police power.
HELD:
Yes. It is a valid exercise of Police Power. The Court has mentioned of the avowed policy of the law for the
protection of public health by ensuring an adequate supply of safe blood in the country through voluntary blood
donation. Attaining this objective requires the interference of the State given the disturbing condition of the Philippine
blood banking system.
In serving the interest of the public, and to give meaning to the purpose of the law, the Legislature deemed it
necessary to phase out commercial blood banks. This action may seriously affect the owners and operators, as
well as the employees, of commercial blood bank but their interests must give way to serve a higher end for the interest of
the public.
POLICE POWER REQUISITES
The promotion of public health is a fundamental obligation of the State. The health of the people is a primordial
governmental concern. Basically, the National Blood Services Act was enacted in the exercise of the State’s police
power in order to promote and preserve public health and safety.
Police power of the state is validly exercised if:
Lawful subject - the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires
the interference of the State; and,
Lawful means- the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the objective sought to be
accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
3. Phil. Assoc. of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, No. L-81958, June 30, 1988, 163 S 386
FACTS
 Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of
Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement,"1 challenges the Constitutional validity of Department
Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES
GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS,” specifically, the measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or females;” that it
"does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills;" and that it is
violative of the right to travel.
 In submitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines," the Solicitor General invokes the police power of the
Philippine State.
ISSUE: WON the Department Order 1 is valid under the Constitution – YES
The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authority to enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." As defined, it
consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable
of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. The
police power of the State ... is a power coextensive with self-protection, and it is not inaptly termed the 'law of
overwhelming necessity.' It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all
things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is not without its own limitations. For all its awesome consequences, it
may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise, and in that event, it defeats the purpose for which it is
exercised, that is, to advance the public good. Thus, when the power is used to further private interests at the expense of
the citizenry, there is a clear misuse of the power.
However, as a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed validity. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary, the presumption logically stands.
The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested measure should be nullified. There is no question that
Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination
between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law" under the Constitution does not import a perfect identity
of rights among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing conditions; and (4) they
apply equally to all members of the same class.
The Court is satisfied that the classification made—the preference for female workers—rests on substantial distinctions.
As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force
abroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not a few cases, physical and
personal abuse. The same, however, cannot be said of our male workers. In the first place, there is no evidence that,
except perhaps for isolated instances, our men abroad have been afflicted with an identical predicament. What the Court is
saying is that it was largely a matter of evidence (that women domestic workers are being ill-treated abroad in massive
instances) and not upon some fanciful or arbitrary yardstick that the Government acted in this case. There is likewise no
doubt that such a classification is germane to the purpose behind the measure. Unquestionably, it is the avowed objective
of Department Order No. 1 to "enhance the protection for Filipino female overseas workers.
4. PRC vs De Guzman, GR No. 144681, June 21, 2004
FACTS:
After the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) released the names of successful examinees in the Medical
Licensure Examination, the Board of Medicine observed that the grades of the 79 Fatima College of Medicine successful
examinees were unusually and exceptionally high in the two (2) most difficult subjects of the exam, i.e., Biochemistry and
Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The Board then issued Resolution No. 19 withholding the registration as physicians of all the examinees from Fatima
College of Medicine. As noted by PRC's statistician consultant, Fr. Nebres of ADMU, compared with other examinees
from other schools, the results of those from Fatima were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to each
other. The NBI Investigation concluded that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions.
On July 5, 1993, the respondents-examinees filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of Manila to compel the PRC
to give them their licenses to practice medicine. Meanwhile on July 21, 1993, the Board of Medicine issued Resolution
No. 21 charging the respondents of immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud and deceit and recommended that the test results
of the Fatima Examinees be nullified.
RTC of Manila promulgated its decision ordering the PRC to allow the respondents to take the physician’s oath and to
register them as physicians. The same was appealed by the PRC to the CA which sustained the RTC decision. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police
power of the State
RULING: YES.
It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject
to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. But like all rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Thus, persons who
desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an
examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation takes particular pertinence in the
field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among
those who would practice medicine.
5. MMDA vs Bel-Air Village Ass. GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000
FACTS
The petitioner - Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), is a Government Agency tasked with the delivery
of basic services in Metro Manila. The respondent - Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA), is non-stock, non-profit
corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City. Respodent received
a letter of request from the petitioner to open Neptune Street of Bel-Air Village for the use of the public. The said opening
of Neptune Street will be for the safe and convenient movement of persons and to regulate the flow of traffic in Makati
City. This was pursuant to MMDA law or Republic Act No. 7924. On the same day, the respondent was apprised that the
perimeter wall separating the subdivision and Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.
The respondent filed a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the MMDA to stop the opening of
the said street and the demolition of the wall. Respondent claimed that the MMDA had no authority to do so and the lower
court decided in favor of the Respondent. Petitioner appealed the decision of the lower courts and claimed that it has the
authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the State that can practice police power in the
delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.
On January 2, 1996, respondent instituted against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City,
Civil Case No. 96-001 for injunction. Respondent prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. The trial court
issued a temporary restraining order the following day.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MMDA has the mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police
powers.
RULING:
The Court held that the MMDA does not have the capacity to exercise police power. Police power is primarily lodged in
the National Legislature. However, police power may be delegated to government units. Petitioner herein is a
development authority and not a political government unit. Therefore, the MMDA cannot exercise police power because it
cannot be delegated to them.
It is not a legislative unit of the government. Republic Act No. 7924 does not empower the MMDA to enact ordinances,
approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Manila. There is no syllable in the
said act that grants MMDA police power. It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating
with various national government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector
for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area.
6. Binay vs Domingo, GR 92389, Sept 11, 1991
FACTS
Petitioner Municipality of Makati, through its Council, approved Resolution No. 60 which extends P500 burial assistance
to bereaved families whose gross family income does not exceed P2,000.00 a month. The funds are to be taken out of the
unappropriated available funds in the municipal treasury. The Metro Manila Commission approved the resolution.
Thereafter, the municipal secretary certified a disbursement of P400,000.00 for the implementation of the program.
However, the Commission on Audit disapproved said resolution and the disbursement of funds for the implementation
thereof for the following reasons: (1) the resolution has no connection to alleged public safety, general welfare, safety, etc.
of the inhabitants of Makati; (2) government funds must be disbursed for public purposes only; and, (3) it violates the
equal protection clause since it will only benefit a few individuals.
ISSUE: Whether Resolution No. 60 is a valid exercise of the police power under the general welfare clause.
RULING:
The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which was born with civilized
government. It is founded largely on the maxims, "Sic utere tuo et ahenum non laedas and "Salus populi est suprema lex.
Its fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people.
Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations. Before a municipal corporation may exercise such
power, there must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of
the
State.
Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause. Pursuant thereto they are clothed with
authority to "enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the
responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety,
comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of
the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein.
7. City of Manila vs Judge Laguio, GR 118127, April 12, 2005
FACTS:



Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation engaged in the business of
operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging houses. It built and opened Victoria Court in Malate which was
licensed as a motel although duly accredited with the Department of Tourism as a hotel. On 28 June 1993, MTDC
filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order (RTC Petition) with the lower court impleading as defendants, herein petitioners City of
Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim (Lim), Hon. Joselito L. Atienza, and the members of the City Council of Manila
(City Council). MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its prohibited
establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Enacted by the City Council and approved by petitioner City Mayor, the said Ordinance is entitled–
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES
PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND
FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
THEREOF,
AND
FOR
OTHER
PURPOSES.
Judge Laguio rendered the assailed Decision (in favor of respondent).
It basically prohibited establishments such as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the Malate
District which was notoriously viewed as a red light district harboring thrill seekers. Malate Tourist Development
Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and motels in the enumeration of places
offering amusement or entertainment. MTDC reiterates that they do not market such nor do they use women as
tools for entertainment. MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only regulate motels but cannot prohibit
their operation. The City reiterates that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power as provided as well in
the LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the purpose of the law is to promote morality in the City.

On 11 January 1995, petitioners filed the present Petition, alleging that the following errors were committed by
the lower court in its ruling:
(1) It erred in concluding that the subject ordinance is ultra vires, or otherwise, unfair, unreasonable and
oppressive exercise of police power;
(2) It erred in holding that the questioned Ordinance contravenes P.D. 499 which allows operators of all
kinds of commercial establishments, except those specified therein; and
(3) It erred in declaring the Ordinance void and unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in concluding that the subject ordinance is ultra vires, or otherwise, unfair,
unreasonable and oppressive exercise of police power?
RULING: NO. It is indeed ultra vires. (beyond the powers)



The Ordinance is in contravention of the Code (Sec 458) as the latter merely empowers local government units to
regulate, and not prohibit, the establishments enumerated in Section 1 thereof.
With respect to cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses, and other
similar establishments, the only power of the City Council to legislate relative thereto is to regulate them to
promote the general welfare. The Code still withholds from cities the power to suppress and prohibit altogether
the establishment, operation and maintenance of such establishments.
The word "regulate," as used in subsection (l), section 2444 of the Administrative Code, means and includes the
power to control, to govern, and to restrain; but "regulate" should not be construed as synonymous with
"suppress" or "prohibit." Consequently, under the power to regulate laundries, the municipal authorities could
make proper police regulations as to the mode in which the employment or business shall be exercised.
8. White light corp. vs City of Manila (GR 122846, 20 Jan 20 2009)
Facts:
On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled “An
Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels,
Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila” (the Ordinance).”
-The ordinance penalizes any person or corporation who will allow the admission and charging of room rates for less than
12 hours or the renting of rooms more than twice a day.
-The petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC), and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development
Corporation (STDC), who own and operate several hotels and motels in Metro Manila, filed a motion to intervene and to
admit attached complaint-in-intervention on the ground that the ordinance will affect their business interests as operators.
The respondents, in turn, alleged that the ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power.
-RTC declared Ordinance No. 7774 null and void as it “strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and
jealously guarded by the Constitution.” Reference was made to the provisions of the Constitution encouraging private
enterprises and the incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate economic enterprises.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision and affirmed the constitutionality of the ordinance of the ordinance on
the grounds that it is a valid exercise of police power for it did not violate the right to privacy and freedom of movement
as it only penalizes the owners or operators of the establishments that admit individuals for short time stay. Also, pursuant
to Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which confers on cities the power to regulate the establishment,
operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and
other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports.
Issue: Whether Ordinance No. 7774 is a valid exercise of police power of the State
Held: No.
Ordinance No. 7774 cannot be considered as a valid exercise of police power, and as such, it is unconstitutional.
The ordinance in this case prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting
out a room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local
government units by the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare clause.
Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people.
Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. The apparent goal of the
ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and
alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State.
Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means must align with
the Constitution.
9. City of Manila vs Judge Laguio, GR 118127, April 12, 2005
10. Acebedo optical vs CA, GR No. 100152, March 31, 2000
11. ABS-CBN vs PMSI, GR 175769-70, Jan 19, 2009
12. City Gov’t of QC vs Ericta, 122 SCRA 759
13. DOH & FDA vs. Philip Morris Phils., Manufacturing, Inc. G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015,
14. OSG vs Ayala Land Inc., G.R. No. 177056, September 18, 2009
15. City of Manila vs Melba Tan, Sept. 21, 2011, G.R. No. 169263
16. Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District, G.R. No. 166471, March 22, 2011
17. Zabal vs Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, Feb. 12, 2019
18. DAR vs Beriña, G.R. Nos. 183901 & 183931, July 9, 2014
19. DAR vs Spouses Sta. Romana, G.R. No. 183290, July 9, 2014
20. Mactan Cebu Int’l Airport vs Lozada, GR No. 176625, Feb 25, 2010
21. Ouano vs Republic, GR 168770 & Mactan-Cebu vs Inocian, GR 168812, Feb. 9,
2011 Heirs of Moreno vs Mactan Cebu Int’l Airport, GR 156271, Aug 9, 2005
22. Air Transportation Office v. Spouses Ramos, GR No. 159402, February 23, 2011
23. Secretary of the DPWH vs. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334. July 1, 2013
24. Sec. of DPWH, et al vs Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334, April 21, 2015,
25. City of Manila vs Te, G.R. No. 169263, September 21, 2011,
26. NPC v. Maria Mendoza San Pedro G.R. No. 170945 September 26, 2006
27. Reyes v. NHA G.R. No. 147511. January 20, 2003
28. NPC vs. Manalastas, G.R. No. 196140, January 27, 2016,
29. Manapat vs CA, GR 110478, Oct 15, 2007
30. Republic vs Judge Gingoyon, GR 116429, Dec 19, 2005
31. NPC vs Lucman Ibrahim, GR 168732, June 29, 2007
32. Republic vs Sarabia, GR 157847, Aug 25, 2005
33. Francia, Jr. vs. Municipality of Meycauaya, G.R. No. 170432, March 24, 2008
34. Manila Electric Co. vs Pineda, G.R. No. L-59791 February 13, 1992
35. Estate of JBL Reyes vs City of Manila, GR No. 132431, Feb 13, 2004
36. Lagcao vs Judge Labra, GR 1554761, Oct 13, 2004
37. Metropolitan Cebu Water vs J. King & Sons, GR 175983, April 16, 2009
38. Republic vs Lim, Gr 161656, June 29, 2005
39. Manila International Airport Authority v. City of Pasay, et al, GR No 163072, April 2, 2009
40. Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance, GR No. 115455, Aug. 25, 1994
41. Gerochi vs. Dept. of Energy, GR No. 159796, July 17, 2007
42. Batangas City, et al vs Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No. 187631, July 8, 2015
43. City Govt of Quezon City, et al vs Bayan Com., GR 162015, March 6, 2006
44. Republic vs City of Parañaque, G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012
45. Republic vs Spouses Salvador, G.R. No. 205428, June 7, 2017
46. CIR vs. St. Lukes Medical Center, G.R. No. 203514; 13 Feb. 2017
47. Dumaguete Cathedrl Credit Coop vs CIR, GR No. 182722, Feb. 22, 2010
48. Mandanas vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 199802, July 03, 2018
49. Film dev’t Council of the Phils vs. Colnon Heritage Council of Cebu, GR No. 203754
50. Nursery Care Corp. vs Acevedo, G.R. No. 180651, July 30, 2014
51. Chevron Philippines, Inc. vs. BCDA, GR No. 173863, Sept. 15, 2010
52. Angeles University Foundation vs. City of Angeles, GR No. 189999, June 27, 2012, 1st Div.
53. People vs Marti, GR No. 81561, Jan 18, 1991
54. Armando Yrasuegui vs PAL, GR 168081, Oct 17, 2008
55. Zulueta vs CA, G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20 1996
56. Phil. Blooming Mills Employees, et al vs Phil. Blooming Mills, GR No L-31195 5 June ‘73
57. Ang Tibay vs CIR, 69 Phils 635
58. Quisumbing vs Rosales, G.R. No. 209283, March 11, 2015
59. Shu vs Magpantay, et al, G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014,
60. Jardeleza vs. CJ Sereno, et al, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014,
61. Nacion vs COA, G.R No. 204757, March 17, 2015,
62. PAGCOR vs De Guzman, G.R. No. 208961, December 08, 2014,
63. Atty Erece vs Macalingay, GR No. 166809, 22 April 2008
64. Dela Salle Univ. vs CA, Dec. 19, 2007
65. Atienza, et al vs Comelec, Roxas and Drilon, GR No. 188920, Feb. 16, 2010
66. Dep Ed vs Cuanan, December 16, 2008
67. Dela Salle Univ. vs CA, dec. 19, 2007
68. Datufac Mangudadatu vs HRET, Dec. 18, 2008
69. Atienza, et al vs Comelec, Roxas and Drilon
70. Republic vs Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No. 173918, April 8, 2008
71. Timbol vs. Comelec, GR No., 206004, February 24, 2015,
72. Kuwait Airline Corporation v. PAL, G.R. No. 156087, May 8, 2009
73. Sec. of Justice vs. Judge Lantion, GR 139465, Oct 17, 2000
74. Fariñas vs Executive Secretary, GR 147387, Dec. 10, 2003
75. ABAKADA Guro Party List vs Purisima, GR 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
76. Garcia vs Judge Drilon, et al, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013,
77. Araullo vs Aquino, G.R. No. 209287 (Consolidated), July 01, 2014,
78. Central Bank Employees Assoc. vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, GR 148208, 15 Dec 2004
79. Gutierrez vs DBM, GR No. 153266, March 18, 2010
80. Himagan vs People, GR No. 113811, Oct 7, 1994
81. Quinto vs Comelec, GR No. 189698, Feb. 22, 2010
82. Duncan Ass. vs Glaxo, GR No. 162994, 17 Sept. 2004
83. PT & T vs NLRC, GR No. 118978, May 23, 1997
84. Int’l School Alliance of Educators vs Quisumbing, GR No. 128845, June 1, 2000
85. Central bank Employees vs Banko Sentral, GR No. 148208, Dec. 15, 2004
86. Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 198554, 30 July 2012
87. Prudente vs Dayrit, 180 Scra 69, dec 14, 1989
88. 20th Century Fox vs CA, 164 Scra 655
89. Sonny Music vs Judge Español, GR 156804, March 14, 2005
90. Pilipinas Shell vs Romars Int’l Gases Corp., G.R. No. 189669, February 16, 2015
91. Leviste vs Alameda, GR No. 182677, Aug 3, 2010 & Medoza vs People, April 21, 2014
92. Pestilos vs Generoso, GR No. 182601, Nov. 10, 2014
93. Anlud Metal Recycling Corp. vs Ang, G.R. No. 182157, August 17, 2015
94. Malacat vs CA, GR 123595, Dec 12, 1997
95. People vs Mengote, GR No. 87059, June 22, 1992
96. People vs Claudio, 160 Scra 646
97. People vs Aminudin, 163 Scra 402
98. People vs Tangliben, 184 Scra 220
99. People vs Malmstedt, GR 91107, June 19, 1991
100.
People vs De Gracia, GR No. 102009-10, July 6, 1994
101.
People vs Chi Chan Liu, et al, G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015
102.
People vs Mariacos, GR No. 18861, June 16, 2010
103.
People vs Escaño, GR No. 129756-58, Jan 28, 2000
104.
People vs Valdez, G.R. No. 129296. September 25, 2000,
105.
Villanueva vs People, GR No. 199042, Nov. 17, 2014
106.
People vs Damaso, 212 SCRA 547
107.
Caballes vs CA, GR No. 136292,, Jan. 15, 2002
108.
GEORGE ANTIQUERA VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 180661, December 11, 2013,
109.
People vs Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
110.
Saluday vs People, G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018
111.
Sanchez vs. People, G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014
112.
Valeroso vs CA, GR No. 164815, Sept 3, 2009
113.
People vs Bolasa, GR No. 125754. Dec. 22. 1999
114.
People vs Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020
115.
Luz vs People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012
116.
Laylay vs People, G.R. No. 216632, 13 March 2019
117.
Disini vs Sec. of Justice, GR No. 203335, Feb 18, 2014 (MR - April 22, 2014)
118.
Chavez vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 168338, Feb. 15, 2008
119.
KMU v. Ermita, G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010
120.
Spouses Romualdez vs. Comelec, GR No. 167011, April 30, 2008 & Dec 11, 2008
121.
Spouses Hing vs Choachuy, et al, G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013
122.
Pollo vs Constantino-David, GR No. 181881, Oct 18, 2011
123.
Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court,
MTC-Manila. ( A.M. Nos. P-08-2519 and P-08-2520, November 19, 2008)
124.
Vivares vs St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014,
125.
Belo-Henares vs Atty. Argee Guevarra, A.C. 11394, Dec. 1, 2016,
126.
Gamboa vs P/SSupt Chan, No. 193636, July 24, 2012,
127.
BSB Group, Inc. vs Sally Go, G.R. No. 168644, February 16, 2010, 3rd Div.
128.
Borjal v. CA, G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999
129.
Tulfo vs. CA, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008
130.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 290, 429-430 (2001)
131.
Newsounds Broadcasting vs Dy, GR 170270 & 79411, April 2, 2009
132.
Diocese of Bacolod vs Comelec, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, J. Leonen
133.
SWS v. COMELEC, G.R. 147571, May 5, 2001
134.
GMA NETWORK, INC. vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
135.
1-UTAK vs Comelec, G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015,
136.
IBP vs Atienza, GR No. 175241, feb. 24, 2010
137.
KMU vs Ermita & Bayan Muna vs Ermita, April 19, 2006, June 20, 2006
138.
Soriano v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 165636, Apr. 29, 2009,
139.
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996
140.
Ebralinag vs Div. Superintendent of Schools, G.R. No. 95770, Dec. 29, 1995
141.
Islamic Da’wah Council vs Executive Secretary, GR No. 1538888, July 9, 2003
142.
Victoriano vs Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)
143.
Mañosca vs CA, GR No. 106440, Jan 29, 1996
144.
Ang Ladlad vs Comelec, GR No. 190582, April 8, 2010
145.
Imbong vs Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014
146.
Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092 September 1, 1994
147.
Nollora, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011
148.
Estrada vs Escritor, AM No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006)
149.
Perfecto vs. Esidera, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417 [Formerly known as OCA IPI No. 103466-RTJ], July 22, 2015,
150.
Leus, vs St. Scholastica’s College, et al, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015,
151.
RE: LETTER OF OF TONY Q. VALENCIANO, HOLDING OF RELIGIOUS
RITUALS AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING IN QUEZON CITY, A.M. No.
10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017
152.
Antolin vs Domondon, GR No. 165036, July 5, 2010
153.
Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941) vs. Comelec, GR No. 177271, May 4, 2007
154.
Genuino vs De Lima, GR 197930, April 17, 2018
155.
Request for RadioTV Coverage - Estrada Trial, A.M. No 01-4-03, June 29, 2001
156.
Bayan Muna, et al vs Ermita, et al, (and companion cases) GR 169659, April 20, 2006
157.
Chavez vs PEA and AMARI, GR 133250, July 9, 2002
158.
PS Bank, et al. vs. Senate Impeachment Court, GR
200238, Feb 9, 2012 Secrecy of Bank Deposit
159.
Hilado, et al vs. Judge Amor Reyes, GR No. 163155, July 21, 2006, Carpio-Morales, 3rd Div.
160.
In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012
161.
Request for copy of 2006 SALN, PDS and CV of SC Justices, officers and
employees AM No. 09-8- 6-SC, June 13, 2012 -,– covered by the right to information
subject to guidelines set forth by the SC.
162.
Sta. Clara Homeowners Assoc. vs Spouses Gaston, GR N. 141961 Jan. 23, 2002,
163.
GSIS vs. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS, G.R. No. 170132, Dec. 6, 2006
164.
United BF Homeowners Assoc. Inc. vs. City Mayor, et al., G.R. No. 141010, Feb. 7, 2007,
165.
Yinlu Bicol Mining Corp. vs. Trans-Asia Oil & Energy Dev’t Corp. GR207942, 12 Jan 15,
166.
Philreca v. Sec. of DILG, GR 1543076, June 10, 2003
167.
Frias, Jr., et al vs Judge Sorongon, G.R. No. 184827, February 11, 2015,
168.
A. M. No. 09-6-9-SC, August 19, 2009, RE: QUERY OF MR. ROGER C.
PRIORESCHI RE EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL AND FILING FEES OF THE
GOOD SHEPHERD FOUNDATION, INC.
169.
People vs Mahinay, feb 1, 1999
170.
BPI vs. CASA, 430 SCRA 261,
171.
People vs Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004
172.
De Castro vs People, G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015,
173.
People vs Cristobal, G.R. No. 159450, March 30, 2011, 3rd Div.
174.
People vs Tuniaco, GR No. 185710, Jan. 10, 2010
175.
Peopls vs Lauga, GR No. 186228, March 15, 2010
176.
People vs Obrero, GR No. 122142, May 17, 2000
177.
People vs Patungan, GR No. 138045, March 14, 2001
178.
People vs Reyes, GR No. 178300, March 17, 2009
179.
People vs Wahiman, G.R. No. 200942, June 16, 2015, En banc
180.
People vs. Rapeza, GR 169431, 3 April 2007
181.
People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001
182.
People v Baloloy, G.R. No 140740, April 12, 2002
183.
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, July 18, 1994
184.
People v. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. 157399, Nov.17, 2005
185.
People vs Taliman, G.R. No. 109143, Oct 11, 2000, 1st Div., Pardo
186.
People v. Culala G. R. No. 83466, October 13, 1999,
187.
People vs Tomaquin, GR No. 133188, July 23, 2004,
188.
People vs. Velarde G.R. No. 139333. July 18, 2002
189.
People v Zuela, G.R. No 112177, January 28, 2000,
190.
People vs. Andan 269 SCRA 95, 110 (1997)
191.
People vs Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983 March 22, 1995
192.
Ho Wai Pang vs. People, G.R. No. 176229, Oct 19, 2011
193.
People vs Bucalon, GR No. 176933, Oct 2, 2009
194.
Qui vs People, G.R. No. 196161, September 26, 2012
195.
Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010
196.
Enrile vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015,
197.
US vs Purganan, GR 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
198.
Gov’t of Hong Kong Special Adm. Region v. Olalia Jr.,G.R 153675, Apr. 19, 2007
199.
Rodriguez vs Judge, GR No. 157977, Feb 27, 2006
200.
Jaylo, et al vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 183152-54, January 21, 2015,
201.
Taglay vs Daray, G.R. No. 164258, August 22, 2012,
202.
People vs CA, G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012,
203.
SEVILLA, VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 194390, August 13, 2014
204.
Re:Conviction of Judge Adoracion Angeles, AM No. 06-9-545, 31 Jan 2008,
205.
Callangan vs. People, G.R. No. 153414, June 27, 2006
206.
People v. Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, Apr. 21, 1999,
207.
Uyboco vs People, G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014,
208.
Delgado v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 357 (1986).
209.
People vs Santocildes, Jr. GR No. 109149, December 21, 1999,
210.
People v. Tulin, G.R. 111709, Aug. 30, 2001,
211.
Re: Request for TV/Radio Coverage of Trial vs. Joseph Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC. June 29,
2001
212.
Go, et al vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012,
213.
People vs Sergio and Lacanilao, GR240053, Oct 9, 2019, 3rd Div
214.
People vs. Chua, G.R. No. 128280. April 4, 2001
215.
De Villa vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 158802. November 17, 2004
216.
De Lima vs Gatdula, G.R. No. 204528, February 19, 2013
217.
So vs. Tacla, G.R. No. 190108 October 19, 2010
218.
Teves v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154182, Dec. 17, 2004
219.
Estrada v. People, G.R. No. 162371, Aug. 25, 2005
220.
People vs Angus, Jr., GR 178778, Aug. 3, 2010
221.
People vs Mortera, GR No. 188104, April 23, 2010
222.
Adonis, et al vs Supt Tesoro (Dir of Davao Prisons), GR No. 182855, June 05, 2013,
223.
Martinez v. Mendoza, 499 SCRA 234 2006,
224.
Ilagan v. Enrile, G.R. No. 70748, Oct. 21, 1985
225.
Sec. of Nat. Defense & AFP Chief of Staff vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008
226.
Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, Dec. 3, 2009
227.
De Lima, et al vs Gatdula, G.R. No. 204528, February 19, 2013,
228.
Navia, et al vs Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012,
229.
Spouses Pador vs Brgy. Capt. Arcayan, et al, G.R. No. 183460, March 12, 2013,
230.
Spouses Santiago vs Tulfo, et al, G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015,
231.
Reyes v. CA, GR 182161, December 3, 2009
232.
So vs. Tacla, G.R. No. 190108 October 19, 2010
233.
Barcelona vs Lim, et al, G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014,
234.
People v. Olvis, G.R. No. 71092, Sept. 30, 1987,
235.
SJS v. DDB, G.R. No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008,
236.
Dela Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014
237.
Herrera vs. Judge Vilches, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005
238.
Echegaray v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 132601, October 12, 1998
239.
Villareal vs People, GR N0. 151258, Feb. 1, 2012
240.
Lejano vs People, Pp vs Webb, et al, GR 176389, Dec. 14, 2010
241.
People vs Judge Lagos, G.R. No. 184658, March 06, 2013,
242.
Bautista vs. Cuneta-Pangilinan, GR 189754, Oct. 24, 2012
243.
Dayap vs Sendiong, GR No. 177960, Jan 29, 2009
244.
People vs Domingo, GR No. 184343, March 2, 2009
245.
Herrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 119660-61, Feb. 13, 2009
246.
People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 168918, Mar. 2, 2009,
247.
People and AAA vs CA, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015,
248.
Ivler vs San Pedro, GR 172716, Nov 17, 2010,
249.
SPO2 JAMACA vs People, G.R. No. 183681, July 27, 2015,
250.
Republic vs Eugenio, GR 174629, Feb 14, 2008