RUTTER vs. ESTEBAN

G.R. No. L-3708; May 18, 1953; 93 Phil. 68

Ponente: Bautista Angelo

Doctrine: Inherent powers of the State; Police Power; The national economy

FACTS:

In August 20, 1941, Rutter sold to Esteban 2 parcels of land in Manila. Esteban paid 3/4ths of the purchase price and they constituted a mortgage over one of the parcels to secure the payment of the balance.

However, the war broke out and somehow, Esteban was not able to pay the balance of the purchase price on the due date and so, on August 2, 1949, Rutter instituted an action to recover the balance with the CFI.

Esteban admitted the averments of the complaint but as a defense, he claimed that his obligation was a pre-war obligation covered by the moratorium embodied in R.A. No. 342.

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 342 provides that “all debts and other monetary obligations contracted before December 8, 1941, any provision in the contract creating the same or any subsequent aggreement affecting such obligation to the contrary notwithstanding, shall not due and demandable for a period of eight (8) years from and after settlement of the war damage claim of the debtor by the Philippine War Damage Commission.”

The CFI ruled in favor of the debtor Esteban. This brings us to the sole issue raised by petitioner on appeal

ISSUE:

Whether or not R.A. No. 342, which declared a moratorium on certain pre-war obligations, is unconstitutional for violation of the Constitutional provision prohibiting the impairment of the obligation of contracts.

HELD:

Yes. R.A. No. 342 is unconstitutional.

Statutes declaring a moratorium on obligations are generally constitutional

Statutes declaring a moratorium on obligations are not new: “For some 1,400 years western civilization has made use of extraordinary devices for saving the credit structure, devices generally known as moratoria. The moratorium is postponement of fulfillment of obligations decreed by the state through the medium of the courts or the legislature. Its essence is the application of the sovereign power.”

Such laws were often passed during or after times of financial distress such as wars and disasters. Similar laws were passed in some US states after the civil war and they have been declared constitutional. Some laws however, were declared unconstitutional where the period of moratorium prescribed is indefinite or unreasonable.

The argument that moratorium laws impair the obligation of contracts does not hold water. It is justified as a valid exercise of the state of it's police power.

In the US case, Home Building and Loan Association vs. Blaisdell, it was held that:

The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts. . . .

x x x

Similarly, where the protective power of the State is exercised in a manner otherwise appropriate in the regulation of a business it is no objection that the performance of existing contracts may be frustrated by the prohibition of injurious practices. . . .

. . . . The question is not whether the legislative action affects contracts incidentally, or directly or indirectly, but whether the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end.

Thus the “true test” of constitutionality of a moratorium statute “lies in the determination of the period of a suspension of the remedy. It is required that such suspension be definite and reasonable, otherwise it would be violative of the constitution.”

R.A. No. 342 is unconstitutional for being unreasonable

The moratorium law, enacted in 1948, came on the heels of executive orders likewise declaring moratoriums. With its 8 year moratorium period, it is clearly unreasonable for creditors who have to “observe a vigil of 12 years” to collect on debts which have become demandable as early as 1941. And the injustice is more patent when, under the law, the debtor is not even required to pay interest during the operation of the relief.

The court also noted that the reconstruction is paying off and that the Philippines is headed to better times. Hence the Supreme Court declared R.A. No. 342 unreasonable and oppressive and hence, null and void and without effect.

Disposition:

Esteban was ordered to pay the balance with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with 12% attorneys fees.

VALINO vs ADRIANO et al.

G.R. No. 182894; April 22, 2014; Mendoza, En Banc

DOCTRINE:

• The law confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to the members of the family to the exclusion of one’s common law partner.

• Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for many years as husband and wife, who represent themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who are reputed to be husband and wife in the community where they live may be considered legally married in common law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines.

• It is generally recognized that the corpse of an individual is outside the commerce of man. However, the law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This quasi-property right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizes them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its final resting place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the dead may receive the respect of the living. This is a family right. There can be no doubt that persons having this right may recover the corpse from third persons.

FACTS:

Atty. Adriano Adriano (Atty. Adriano) married respondent Rosario Adriano in 1955. The couple had 5 children and 1 adopted child, also impleaded herein as respondents. The marriage did turn sour and the couple separated in fact, though Adriano continued to support his wife and children.

Atty. Adriano then started living with Valino, whom he courted. Atty. Adriano died and since his immediate family, including respondent were in the United States, Valino took it upon herself to bury Atty. Adriano at her family's mausoleum. In the meantime, Respondents heard about the death and requested Valino to delay the burial so they can pay their final respects, but Valino still buried the body.

Respondents commenced suit against Valino praying that they be indemnified for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and that the remains of Atty. Adriano be exhumed and transferred to the family plot.

Valino claimed that it was Atty. Adriano's last wish to be buried at Valino's family's mausoleum and that the respondent's knew that Atty. Adriano was already in a coma yet they still proceeded to the US on vacation. And that as far as the public was concerned, Valino had been introducing her as his wife for the past 20 years.

The RTC dismissed the complaint of respondents for lack of merit as well as the counterclaim of Valino after it found them to have not been sufficiently proven.

CA reversed [explained that Rosario, being the legal wife, was entitled to the custody of the remains of her deceased husband. Citing Article 305 of the New Civil Code in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code, it was the considered view of the appellate court that the law gave the surviving spouse not only the duty but also the right to make arrangements for the funeral of her husband. For the CA, Rosario was still entitled to such right on the ground of her subsisting marriage with Atty. Adriano at the time of the latter’s death, notwithstanding their 30-year separation in fact.]

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents (wife and children of deceased Atty. Adriano) are entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano.

HELD:

YES. The weight of legal provisions puts the responsibility of the burial with the respondents, to wit:

The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the order established for support, under Article 294. In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right. (New Civil Code Art. 305)

…

Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided:

(1) The spouse;

(2) The descendants in the nearest degree;

(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and

(4) The brothers and sisters. (Family Code, Art. 199)

…

No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the persons mentioned in Articles [199 of the Family Code] and 305. (New Civil Code, Art. 308)

As applied to this case, it is clear that the law gives the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano. The fact that she was living separately from her husband and was in the United States when he died has no controlling significance. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived or renounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to make arrangements for the funeral of her deceased husband is baseless.

It is also recognized that a corpse is outside the commerce of man. However, the law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This quasi-property right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizes them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its final resting place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the dead may receive the respect of the living. This is a family right. There can be no doubt that persons having this right may recover the corpse from third persons.

VICTORIANO vs. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZAALDE ROPE FACTORY

G.R. No. L-25246; September 12, 1974; 59 SCRA 54
Ponente: Zaldivar Sec. 18, Article II 1987 Constitution:
  "The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare."

Facts:

Petitioner Victoriano is a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo and was an employee of Elizalde Rope Factory and was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union. Membership with the Union was mandatory as provided for under a collective bargaining agreement: "Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers covered by this Agreement."

Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875, prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, the employer was not precluded "from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees." On June 18, 1961, however, Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to — paragraph (4) subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization".

Being a member of the INC, a religion that prohibits affiliation with labor organizations, the Petitioner wrote a letter informing the Union of his resignation. Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking the latter to separate Appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a member.

The CFI ruled in favor of Petitioner and enjoined the company from dismissing him.

In its appeal, the Union claimed that R.A. no. 3350 was unconstitutional on the ground that 1) prohibits all the members of a given religious sect from joining any labor union if such sect prohibits affiliations of their members thereto; and, consequently, deprives said members of their constitutional right to form or join lawful associations or organizations guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and thus becomes obnoxious [to the] Constitution; 2) Impairs the obligation of contracts; 3) discriminates in favor of certain religious sects and affords no protection to labor unions; 4) violates the constitutional provision that no religious test shall be required for the exercise of a civil right; 5) violates the equal protection clause; and 6) the act violates the constitutional provision regarding the promotion of social justice.
Issue:

Whether or not R.A. No. 3350 violates the Constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and to promote their welfare notwithstanding the fact that it allows some workers, by virtue of their religious beliefs, to opt out of Union security agreements. Held:

NO. R.A. No. 3350 is constitutional on all counts. It must be pointed out that the free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter must, therefore, yield to the former.

The purpose of Republic Act No. 3350 is secular, worldly, and temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and eternal. It was intended to serve the secular purpose of advancing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, by averting that certain persons be refused work, or be dismissed from work, or be dispossessed of their right to work and of being impeded to pursue a modest means of livelihood, by reason of union security agreements.

More so now in the [1987 and past in constitutions] [...] where it is mandated that "the State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relation between workers and employers.

We believe that in enacting Republic Act No. 3350, Congress acted consistently with the spirit of the constitutional provision. It acted merely to relieve the exercise of religion, by certain persons, of a burden that is imposed by union security agreements. It was Congress itself that imposed that burden when it enacted the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act 875), and, certainly, Congress, if it so deems advisable, could take away the same burden. It is certain that not every conscience can be accommodated by all the laws of the land; but when general laws conflict with scrupples of conscience, exemptions ought to be granted unless some "compelling state interest" intervenes. In the instant case, We see no such compelling state interest to withhold exemption.

TENCHAVEZ vs ESCAÑO

15 SCRA 355, November 29, 1965

Ponente:Reyes, JBL

G.R. No. L-19671

Doctrine: Damages

FACTS:
Not satisfied with the decision of this Court, plaintiff-appellant Pastor B. Tenchavez and defendant-appellee Vicenta F. Escaño, respectively, move for its reconsideration; in addition, Russell Leo Moran, whom said defendant married in the United States, has filed, upon leave previously granted, a memorandum in intervention.

Movant Tenchavez poses the novel theory that Mamerto and Mina Escaño are undeserving of an award for damages because they are guilty of contributory negligence in failing to take up proper and timely measures to dissuade their daughter Vicenta from leaving her husband Tenchavez obtaining a foreign divorce and marrying another man (Moran). This theory cannot be considered: first, because this was not raised in the court below; second, there is no evidence to support it; third, it contradicts plaintiff's previous theory of alienation of affections in that contributory negligence involves an omission to perform an act while alienation of affection involves the performance of a positive act.

The award of moral damages against Vicenta Escaño is assailed on the ground that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, her denial of consortium and desertion of her husband are not included in the enumeration of cases where moral damages may lie.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tenchavez is allowed to increase the damages against Vicenta (P25,000 for damages and attorney's fees were awarded to Tenchavez in the decision).

HELD:
The argument is untenable. The acts of Vicenta (up to and including her divorce, for grounds not countenanced by our law, which was hers at the time) constitute a wilful infliction of injury upon plaintiff's feelings in a manner "contrary to morals, good customs or public policy" (Civ. Code, Art. 21) for which Article 2219 (10) authorizes an award of moral damages.

It is also argued that, by the award of moral damages, an additional effect of legal separation has been added to Article 106. Appellee obviously mistakes our grant of damages as an effect of legal separation. It was plain in the decision that the damages attached to her wrongful acts under the codal article (Article 2176) expressly cited.

For analogous reasons, the arguments advanced against the award of attorney's fees must be rejected as devoid of merit.

Contrary to intervenor Moran's contention, the decision did not impair appellee's constitutional liberty of abode and freedom of locomotion, as, in fact, Vicenta Escaño did exercise these rights, and even abused them by stating in her application for a passport that she was "single", the better to facilitate her flight from the wrongs she had committed against her husband. The right of a citizen to transfer to a foreign country and seek divorce in a diverse forum is one thing, and the recognition to be accorded to the divorce decree thus obtained is quite another; and the two should not be confused.

There was a Second Motion for Reconsideration, but it was likewise denied. It concerned the jurisdiction over Vicenta's person of the court.

ON THE ARMS DISPARITY BETWEEN PHILIPPINES AND CHINA

I just had a discussion with a Makati resident regarding Vice President Binay and why Makati residents will consistently and continuously keep voting for him in spite of the numerous allegations of corruption which, if true would mean that his dynasty squandered billions and billions of pesos. Well, to be honest, she was a bit of a simpleton, her main argument was that the “poor” keep getting benefits under Binay, hence they will keep voting for him - damn poor argument and full of holes.

To begin with, Makati City is possibly the richest city in the Philippines and one with a relatively small resident population. The fact that there are still “poor” people in Makati speaks volumes on the utilization of capital.

That leads me to the thesis of this article:  The way we handle our capital leaves much to be desired. Plans get bogged down for want of corruption, corruption saps funding and capital that would result in first class projects.

Contrast this with the Chinese Approach

We often hear of people complaining of the poor roads, housing and other infrastructure in an area, say a city. Doesn’t it just put you to shame that the Chinese can just go ahead and build new infrastructure seemingly in the middle of nowhere, while over in this country, a road reblocking is already considered a huge undertaking!?

Chinese Armed Forces

It isn’t just infrastructure where the Philippines lags behind China. We also lag behind militarily.

(Above) Chinese “infrastructure” project in the West Philippine Sea

versus

Philippine Naval Installation, the BRP Sierra Madre

[Source: Both pictures are from Rappler]

The problem with the Philippines is that we never had a “martial tradition”. Procurements for the military are treated in the same way as any other government project rather than as a class of their own. This means that if we buy aircraft, for example, we have to put out a public bidding, everyone’s going to know how much our budget is, etc.

Naturally, the media is going to pick all this up and all of our tech acquisitions, both planned and accomplished are going to go on TV, print etc.

A little secrecy helps

Chinese don’t need to fly spy satellites over us if the media keeps this up. All they need to do is download the iWantTV app and watch the news for everything relating to troop movements and deployment.

This is really a problem with our gossippy, I-can-piss-higher-than-you braggadocio culture. A new helicopter is big news! You can count on ABS-CBN showing off our latest frigate and letting the entire WORLD know exactly where it is anchored.

The 2015 SONA

The President’s last State of the Nation Address went into the details of the AFP modernization program. One of the highlights of the 2015 SONA was an interview with a Philippine Airforce Man on how, “the long wait is over” - That we are finally going to start receiving aircraft to beef up the Philippine Air Force (PAF). You will see this PMA graduate stating the obvious in the clip below.

In a country like ours, things like these make the SONA!

Clearly, we’ve got to improve our own domestic capacity for infrastructure projects and arms/equipment manufacture. Government can start by following the National Socialist model of partnering with local manufacturers and helping them grow.

PRODUCT PLACEMENT IN TERMINATOR: GENISYS

Is Skynet the future? Is Silicon Valley going to be the end of humanity as we know it? It’s quite possible.

Skynet has gone through a number of iterations. The original Skynet “origin” story involved the Terminator’s chip and hand in Terminator (1984) getting used as the basis of a computer that was used to control nuclear missiles. That computer eventually became “self-aware” and tried to destroy humanity.

The Skynet origin story in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) was also program used to control nukes.

Generally, in the first three iterations of the franchise, it appears that Skynet was powered by mac. I found an OLD meme on 9gag that proves this.

The latest film in the franchise, Terminator: Genisys, has a different take on the Skynet origin. The film paints Skynet as “Genisys”, a very popular app or OS [update?] that is set to upload itself into billions of computing devices - computers, tablets and smartphones. And people are eagerly and, like a herd of bleating sheep, are eagerly awaiting its arrival.

Feel like you're being herded onto Windows 10? Well, you should

What does that remind you of?

Personally, it reminds me of the big bad wolf of Redmond.

We are all eagerly awaiting the release of Microsoft’s latest OS, Windows 10. Its being pushed as a FREE UPDATE for most consumers [i.e. non-enterprise] running PC and tablet versions of Windows 7 and 8.1  as well as Windows Phone 8.1. Among the features being pushed is a universal app environment for everything from PCs, Tablets, Hololenses, Gaming Consoles, Smartphones and the “Internet of Things”.

source: Windows Blog

Another ominous feature is Cortana, a personal assistant program and possibly the beginning of AI becoming self-aware.

It just makes Microsoft’s product placement in Genisys all the more ominous - Almost everyone there is rockin’ a Nokia/Microsoft Lumia

It even fits the in-movie declaration of Genisys being in a billion devices after its release which roughly parallels the intent of Microsoft to bring Windows 10 to a billion devices.

So, which tech company do you think will one day create Artificial Intelligence smart enough to destroy us?

BROUHAHA OVER FREE RIGHTS TO WINDOWS 10

This is a defense of the giant, Microsoft (MS) over the misunderstanding and subsequent misunderstanding surrounding a supposed backdoor to a free licensed copy of Windows 10, the latest, and somewhat groundbreaking, operating system (OS) coming from the Redmond company.

Windows 10 picks up after the widely panned Windows 8 and brings the OS across different platforms like the PCs, Tablets, Smartphone, the XboX, and even a Holo Lens. All versions will run “Universal Apps” which should work across all platforms. Windows 10 is generally shaping up to be a hit for Microsoft, key to this is the insider program where volunteer beta testers give useful feedback to Microsoft in order to perfect the OS before its July 29 release.

source: Windows Blog

Microsoft announced in an earlier version of its blog:

Windows Insiders running the Windows 10 Insider Preview (Home and Pro editions) with their registered MSA connected to their PC will receive the final release build of Windows 10 starting on 29 July ...

As long as you are running an Insider Preview build and connected with the MSA you used to register, you will receive the Windows 10 final release build and remain activated.

Once you have successfully installed this build and activated, you will also be able to clean install on that PC from final media if you want to start over fresh.

This led some amateur hackers to claim that theoretically, one will be able to obtain an unlimited number of copies of the new OS by simply signing up to the insider program, downloading a beta copy of Windows 10 and, when the new OS rolls out on July 29, 2015, their copy of the beta version will become a licensed copy of the OS. Theoretically, you can create an infinite number of these “legitimized versions” running on what were once pirated versions, builds and virtual desktops! One didn’t even need to install it over a licensed version of Windows 7 or 8.1 as would be required of regular users.

It seems the hack was first published on the Verge here.

When this hack was publicized, the hacking community was rejoicing. Never before had MS allowed one to download copies of their OS and for FREE at that!

So you can imagine the rage that Microsoft generated when it [secretly] amended its blog post with the following changes:

Source: zdnet.com

Needless to say, Microsoft was literally forced to clarify the confusion of who gets a free version of Windows 10. The final word on the matter was discussed by Microsoft’s Gabe Aul in an interview with the Verge:

The nuance here is that Microsoft will keep fresh copies of Windows 10 activated for testers only if they keep opting-in to future preview updates. So if you’ve clean installed a Windows 10 preview build and upgrade to the final then you don’t have to worry about activation as long as you keep receiving pre-release updates. "Since we’re continuing the Windows Insider Program you’ll be able to continue receiving builds and those builds will continue to be activated under the terms of the Windows Insider Program,"...

You could read Microsoft’s blog post clarifying this whole thing here.

Why did this create such a brouhaha? Was the furor justified? It seems that the community was simply used to getting stuff for free. Paying for software is no longer the norm. We have Cupertino and Incheon to blame for this. Cupertino was the company that pioneered the Over the Air (OTA)

Read: Apple Just Ended the Era of Paid Operating Systems

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft is a software company, its focus isn’t on making the machines that run the software itself - unlike Apple which both makes hardware and software, or unlike google which gives away free software and makes money off advertisers - completely different business model! And at the heart of this matter is that Microsoft has the right to make money off the licensing of its software and to prevent those running unlicensed versions of its software from getting away with things.

In no way is Microsoft the “bad guy” in this brouhaha, rather, it is the victim of those people seeking to take advantage of free software.

These people, thinking they’ve found a loophole published their theories and simply got disappointed when Microsoft “clarified itself” in order to avoid the very disappointment these people are feeling now. In now way will an ordinary/regular user of the software be affected by this at all.

Of course, there are those within the Windows 10 Insider program who were hurt stating that they should have been entitled to a free version of Windows 10 as well, compensation. Sorry to say guys, but what you went through was completely voluntary, thus Microsoft isn’t obligated to give you any compensation.

We can understand the frustration this caused, though, we’ve become spoiled with “free” OS upgrades thanks to the Open Source Android Operating System and the Hardware-Subsidized iOS, but paid operating systems, especially those that come with support contracts for personal users and enterprises is still a legitimate business model.

Remember when you had to buy this baby off the shelf?

source: guidebookgallery.com

With that, we should just go ahead and enjoy the free upgrade this July 29.