Case Digest - Association and Contract bY QUAN

7/25/2019 Case Digest - Association and Contract bY QUAN

1/15

Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs DOLEFacts:On August 15, 1987, CENECO entered into a collective bargaining agreement with C!E, alabor union re"resenting its ran#$and$%le em"lo&ees, "roviding 'or a term o' three &earsretroactive to A"ril 1, 1987 and e(tending u" to )arch *1, 199+ On -ecember .8, 1989,C!E wrote CENECO "ro"osing that negotiations be conducted 'or a new collectivebargaining agreement /C0AOn 2anuar& 18, 199+, CENECO denied C!E3s re4uest on the ground that, under a""licable

decisions o' the u"reme Court, em"lo&ees who at the same time are members o' anelectric coo"erative are not entitled to 'orm or 6oin a unionrior to the submission o' the "ro"osal 'or C0A renegotiation, C!E members, in a generalassembl& held on -ecember 9, 1989, a""roved !esolution No *5 whereb& it was agreedthat all union members shall withdraw, retract, or recall the union members3 membershi"'rom Central Negros Electric Coo"erative, nc in order to avail /o' the 'ull bene%ts underthe e(isting Collective 0argaining Agreement entered into b& and between CENECO andC!E, and the su""osed bene%ts that our union ma& avail o' under the renewed C0Aowever, the withdrawal 'rom membershi" was denied b& CENECO on ;ebruar& .7, 199+under !esolution No 9+Issue: ations 'or "ur"oses o' collectivebargaining 'or being themselves co$owners o' the coo"erative* owever, in so 'ar as it involves coo"eratives with em"lo&ees who are not members orco$owners thereo', certainl& such em"lo&ees are entitled to e(ercise the rights o' allwor#ers to organi>ation, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are enshrined in

the Constitution and e(isting laws o' the countr&

n !e Att& )arcial Edilion

;acts: Att& Edillon 4uestioned the integration o' the 0e did not "a& his annual 'eeas member /membershi" dues o' the 0 e argued that to be member o' the 0 is aviolation o' his constitutional right to associate0 recommends his delisting 'rom the roll o' attorne&s 'or non$"a&ment o' the duesssue:


2/15

.


3/15

*


4/15

D


5/15

eo"le vs ;errer /D8 C!A *8.

;acts:On )arch 1+, 197+, a "rima 'acie case was %led against ;eliciano Co in the Court o';irst nstance in =arlac concerning the Anti$ubversion Act e was accused o' being anocer or a ran#ed leader o' the Communist art& o' the hili""ines, an outlawed and

illegal organi>ation aimed to overthrow the government o' the hili""ines b& means o''orce, violence, deceit, subversion or an& other illegal means Co claimed that the Anti$ubversion Act is a bill o' attainder On )a& .5, 197+, Nilo =a&ag and %ve others werealso charged in the same court with subversion =a&ag co"ied Co3s attac# on the law=he court ruled the statute void on the grounds that it is a bill o' attainder and that it isvague overbroad Fovernment a""ealed to the C as a s"ecial civil action 'or certiorari

ssues:!elevant: ation 0oth accusedmoved to 4uash the in'ormations on the ground that the Anti$ubversion aw is a bill o'attainder =he trial court agreed, and thus, dismissed the in'ormations against the twoaccused

E:


6/15

not onl& to the Communist art& o' the hili""ines but also to Ian& other organi>ationhaving the same "ur"ose and their successorsJ ts 'ocus is not on individuals but onconductndeed, were the Anti$ubversion Act a bill o' attainder, it would be totall& unnecessar&to charge Communists in court, as the law alone, without more, would suce to securetheir "unishment 0ut the undeniable 'act is that their guilt still has to be 6udiciall&established =he Fovernment has &et to "rove at the trial that the accused 6oined theart& #nowingl&, will'ull& and b& overt acts, and that the& 6oined the art&, #nowing its

subversive character and with s"eci%c intent to 'urther its basic ob6ective, ie, tooverthrow the e(isting Fovernment b& 'orce deceit, and other illegal means and "lacethe countr& under the control and domination o' a 'oreign "owerAs to the claim that under the statute organi>ationl guilt is nonetheless im"uted des"itethe re4uirement o' "roo' o' #nowing membershi" in the art&, suce it to sa& that is"recisel& the nature o' cons"irac&, which has been re'erred to as a Idragnet deviceJwhereb& all who "artici"ate in the criminal covenant are liable =he contention wouldbe correct i' the statute were construed as "unishing mere membershi" devoid o' an&s"eci%c intent to 'urther the unlaw'ul goals o' the art& 0ut the statute s"eci%call&re4uired that membershi" must be #nowing or active, with s"eci%c intent to 'urther theillegal ob6ectives o' the art& =hat is what section D means when it re4uires thatmembershi", to be unlaw'ul, must be shown to have been ac4uired I#nowingl&, will'ull&

and b& overt actsJ =he ingredient o' s"eci%c intent to "ursue the unlaw'ul goals o' theart& must be shown b& Iovert actsJ =his constitutes an element o' Imembershi"Jdistinct 'rom the ingredient o' guilt& #nowledge =he 'ormer re4uires "roo' o' direct"artici"ation in the organi>ation3s unlaw'ul activities, while the latter re4uires "roo' o'mere adherence to the organi>ation3s illegal ob6ectives /eo"le v ;errer, F! Nos $*.H1*$1D, .7 -ecember 197., D8 C!A *8.

Kictoriano v Eli>alde !o"e


7/15

Con'erence o' )aritime Agencies, nc vs OEA;acts:

etitioner, Con'erence o' )aritime )anning Agencies, nc, is an incor"oratedassociation o' licensed ;ili"ino manning agencies, and its co$"etitioners, all licensedmanning agencies who hire and recruit ;ili"ino seamen 'or and in behal' o' theirres"ective 'oreign shi"$owner$"rinci"als, see# to annul !esolution No +1, series o'

199D, o' the Foverning 0oard o' the OEA and OEA )emorandum Circular No +5

=he "etitioners contended that OEA does not have the "ower and authorit& to %( and"romulgate rates a?ecting death and wor#menMs com"ensation o' ;ili"inoseamenwor#ing in ocean$going vessels@ onl& Congress can

Foverning 0oard !esolution No 1: the OEA Foverning 0oard resolves to amend andincrease the com"ensation and other bene%ts as s"eci%ed under art , ection C,"aragra"h 1 and ection , "aragra"hs 1 and . o' the OEA tandard Em"lo&mentContract 'or ea'arers

ssue:


8/15

during the de"th o' the Freat -e"ression and has been critici>ed b& modernconservative and libertarian commentators1P.P*P0ac#ground and decisioneditPn 19**, in res"onse to a large number o' home 'oreclosures, )innesota, li#e man&other states at the time,DP e(tended the time available 'or mortgagors to redeem theirmortgages 'rom 'oreclosure =he e(tension had the e?ect o' enlarging the mortgagorMsestate contrar& to the terms o' the contract=he u"reme Court u"held the statute, reasoning that the emergenc& conditions

created b& the Freat -e"ression Lma& 6usti'& the e(ercise o' the tateMsP continuingand dominant "rotective "ower notwithstanding inter'erence with contractsL5P0laisdell was the %rst time the court e(tended the emergenc& e(ce"tion to "urel&economic emergenciesed 0laisdell among theCourt "recedents that have diminished constitutional "rotection o' individual "ro"ert&rights !ichard E"steinMs /the aurence A =isch ro'essor o' aw at the New or#niversit& chool o' aw and Ad6unct cholar at the American libertarian thin# tan#

Cato nstitute criticisms have been some o' the most vocal:0laisdell trum"eted a 'alse liberation 'rom the constitutional te(t that has "aved thewa& 'or massive government intervention that undermines the securit& o' "rivatetransactions =oda& the "olice "ower e(ce"tion has come to eviscerate the contractsclause1P

0rie' ;act ummar& As an emergenc& measure, during the Freat -e"ression,)innesota "assed a law that modi%ed lender3s contractual rights o' 'oreclosure withtheir debtors =he constitutionalit& o' the law was brought into 4uestion

&no"sis o' !ule o' aw A tate action that im"airs a "rivate contract is not validunless it is reasonabl& related to the achievement o' a legitimate tate end

;acts n the midst o' the Freat -e"ression, )innesota "assed a law declaring anemergenc& and sa&ing that during the emergenc& "eriod courts could e(tend the time"eriods in which mortgagers could "a& bac# their debts to their lenders ursuant to thestatute, 0laisdell3s "eriod o' redem"tion was e(tended, un4uestionabl& modi'&ing thelender3s contractual rights o' 'oreclosure =he constitutionalit& o' the law was broughtinto 4uestion

ssue -id the )innesota law violate the "rovision o' the nited tates Constitutionwhich "rohibits a state 'rom im"airing the obligations o' contractsQ

eld No =he law was a legitimate use o' its "olice "owers since )innesota 'acedmassive economic diculties=he Contract Clause was ado"ted b& the ;ramers during the distressed economic times'ollowing the !evolutionar&


9/15

n this case, the legislation was addressed to a legitimate end R an emergenc& e(istedin )innesota lus, the conditions u"on which the "eriod o' redem"tion under thecontract was e(tended do not a""ear unreasonable

-issent 2ustice utherland: A "rovision o' the nited tates Constitution cannot beinter"reted in two distinctl& o""osite wa&s t cannot mean one thing under certainconditions and another thing under other conditions ' the "rovisions o' theConstitution cannot be u"held when it discom'orts us as well as when it com'orts us,

the& ma& as well be abandoned

-iscussion =he u"reme Court in this case would have us view the Contract Clause notso much as a "rovision intended to con'er a right on citi>ens as individuals, eg, 'or the"rotection o' "rivate citi>ens entering into "ersonal contracts@ but rather as a "rovisionthat con'ers a right on the citi>ens collectivel&, eg, 'or the "rotection o' a sound creditmar#et we all can en6o& Kiewing the clause as the latter t&"e o' right, it seems more6usti%able 'or the government do as it has done here R ad6ust the "rivate rights o'individual citi>ens 'or the bene%t o' the "ublic

Case -igest: o>ano v )artine>F! No $H*D19, -ecember 18, 198H

;O!EN=NA A OSANO, "etitioner, vs =E ONO!A0E AN=ONO ) )A!=NES, in hisca"acit& as residing 2udge, !egional =rial Court, National Ca"ital 2udicial !egion,0ranch TT, )anila, and the ONO!A0E 2OE 0 ;A)NANO, in his ca"acit& as Cit&;iscal o' )anila, res"ondents

A, 2:etitioners, charged with 0atas ambansa 0ilang .. /0 .. 'or short, "o"ularl& #nownas the 0ouncing Chec# aw, assail the lawMs constitutionalit&

0 .. "unishes a "erson Lwho ma#es or draws and issues an& chec# on account or 'orvalue, #nowing at the time o' issue that he does not have sucient 'unds in or creditwith the draweeban# 'or the "a&ment o' said chec# in 'ull u"on "resentment, whichchec# is subse4uentl& dishonored b& the drawee ban# 'or insucienc& o' 'unds orcredit or would have been dishonored 'or the same reason had not the drawer, withoutan& valid reason, ordered the ban# to sto" "a&mentL =he "enalt& "rescribed 'or theo?ense is im"risonment o' not less than *+ da&s nor more than one &ear or a %ne ornot less than the amount o' the chec# nor more than double said amount, but in nocase to e(ceed .++,+++++, or both such %ne and im"risonment at the discretion o'the court

=he statute li#ewise im"oses the same "enalt& on Lan& "erson who, having sucient'unds in or credit with the drawee ban# when he ma#es or draws and issues a chec#,shall 'ail to #ee" sucient 'unds or to maintain a credit to cover the 'ull amount o' the

chec# i' "resented within a "eriod o' ninet& /9+ da&s 'rom the date a""earing thereon,'or which reason it is dishonored b& the drawee ban#

An essential element o' the o?ense is L#nowledgeL on the "art o' the ma#er or drawero' the chec# o' the insucienc& o' his 'unds in or credit with the ban# to cover thechec# u"on its "resentment ince this involves a state o' mind dicult to establish,the statute itsel' creates a"rima 'acie "resum"tion o' such #nowledge where "a&mento' the chec# Lis re'used b& thedrawee because o' insucient 'unds in or credit withsuch ban# when "resented within ninet& /9+ da&s 'rom the date o' the chec# =omitigate the harshness o' the law in its a""lication, the statute "rovides that such"resum"tion shall not arise i' within %ve /5 ban#ing da&s 'rom recei"t o' the notice o'dishonor, the ma#er or drawer ma#es arrangements 'or "a&ment o' the chec# b& the

ban# or "a&s the holder the amount o' the chec#

9


10/15

Another "rovision o' the statute, also in the nature o' a rule o' evidence, "rovides thatthe introduction in evidence o' the un"aid and dishonored chec# with the draweeban#Ms re'usal to "a& Lstam"ed or written thereon or attached thereto, giving thereason there'or, Lshall constitute "rima'acie "roo' o' Lthe ma#ing or issuance o' saidchec#, and the due "resentment to the drawee 'or "a&ment and the dishonor thereo' 'or the reason written, stam"ed or attached b& the drawee on such dishonored chec#L

=he "resum"tions being merel& "rima 'acie, it is o"en to the accused o' course to

"resent "roo' to the contrar& to overcome the said "resum"tions

E:


11/15

against the constitutionalit& o' the law are a it is violative o' the constitutional"rovision on non$im"risonment due to debt, and b it im"airs 'reedom o' contractE:


12/15

F! No $.DH7+9D C!A 5**-ecember 1D, 1979;acts:lainti? is engaged in real estate business, develo"ing and selling lots to the "ublic,"articularl& the ighwa& ills ubdivision along E-A, )andalu&ong, !i>alOn )arch D, 195., "lainti? entered into se"arate agreements o' sale with Augustoadilla & Angeles and Natividad Angeles over . "arcels o' land /ots Nos 5 and H, 0loc#

*1, o' the ighwa& ills ubdivision On 2ul& 19, 19H. the vendees trans'erred theirrights and interests over the said lots to Emma Chave> =he "lainti? e(ecuted thecorres"onding deeds o' sale in 'avor o' Emma Chave> u"on "a&ment o' the "urchase"rice 0oth the agreements and the deeds o' sale therea'ter e(ecuted contained thesti"ulation that the "arcels o' land sub6ect o' the deeds o' sale Ishall be used b& the0u&er e(clusivel& 'or residential "ur"osesJ =he restrictions were later annotated in the=rans'er Certi%cates o' =itles covering the said lots issued in the name o' Chave>Eventuall&, de'endant$a""ellee ac4uired ots No 5 and H with the building restrictionsalso annotated in their corres"onding =C=s ot No5 was bought directl& 'rom Chave>I'ree 'rom all liens and encumbrancesJ while ot NoH was ac4uired through a I-eed o'E(changeJ 'rom !e"ublic ;lour )illslainti? claims that the restrictions were im"osed as "art o' its general building scheme

designed 'or the beauti%cation and develo"ment o' the ighwa& ills ubdivision which'orms "art o' its big landed estate where commercial and industrial sites are alsodesignated or established-e'endant maintains that the area along the western "art o' E-A 'rom haw0oulevard to the asig !iver, has been declared a commercial and industrial >one, "er!esolutionNo.7 o' the )unici"al Council o' )andalu&ong t alleges that "lainti?Icom"letel& sold and trans'erred to third "ersons all lots in said subdivision 'acingE-AJ and the sub6ect lots thereunder were ac4uired b& it Ionl& on 2une .*, 19H. ormore than . &ears a'ter the area ((( had been declared a commercial and industrial>oneJOn or about )a& 5, 19H*, de'endant$a""ellee began construction o' a building devotedto ban#ing "ur"oses but which it claims could also be used e(clusivel& 'or residential"ur"oses =he 'ollowing da&, the "lainti? demanded in writing that the construction o'the commercial building be sto""ed but the de'endant re'used to com"l& contendingthat the construction was in accordance with the >oning regulationsssues:1


13/15

. >aro and Consuelo K acson =he issues raised in the instant

"etition have alread& been dealt with in the consolidated cases decided b& this Court"romulgated on -ecember .., 1988 entitled angalang -octrine

1*


14/15

E:V -oes the angalang -octrine can be consider in the case at barQV -oes the -eed o' !estrictions entirel& wrongQ

E-:


15/15

established as a minimum wage b& the ndustrial

Documents

Case Digest - Association and Contract bY QUAN