[Digest] People vs. Fajardo (1958)

PEOPLE V. FAJARDO (1958)

 Reyes, J.B.L.

Facts

 Aug. 15, 1950 - Juan Fajardo was the mayor of Baoo, Camarines Sur. During his term the municipal council passed Ordinance No. 7 which prohibited the construction or repair of any building without a written permit from the mayor prior to construction or repairing.

1954 - Fajardo and Babillonia (Fajardo’s son-in-law) applied for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gas station, still on Fajardo’s private land, separated from public plaza by a creek.

 Jan. 16, 1954 – request denied because it would destroy the view of the public plaza.
o    Applicants appealed but were turned down again on Jan. 18, 1954.

 Fajardo and Babillonia proceeded to construct even without a permit because they claimed that they needed a residence badly due to a typhoon destroying their previous place of residence

Feb. 26, 1954 – Fajardo et at., were charged and convicted by peace court of Baoo for violating Ordinance no. 7

o    CFI – Affirmed

o    CA forwarded the case to the SC because “the appeal attacks the constitutionality of the ordinance in question.”

Issue/Held: W/N Ordinance No. 7 is a valid exercise police power in its regulation of property.

NO. Ordinance No. 7 went beyond the authority that the municipality could enact and is therefore null and void. Fajardo et al., acquitted.

Ratio:

•      The ordinance is not merely lacking in providing standards to guide and/or control the discretion vested by the ordinance. STANDARDS ARE ENTIRELY LACKING IN THIS CASE.

o    Ordinance grants mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant/deny construction/repair permits

•         Legislation may validly regulate property in the interest of general welfare

à Prohibition of offensive structures. HOWEVER, ‘the state may not under the guise of police power permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community.’

o    IN THIS CASE: Structures regardless of their own beauty and regardless of the fact that they are built on private land are condemned by the ordinance à appellants constrained would be constrained to leave their land to idle without receiving just compensation for the virtual confiscation of their private land

•      Municipal government justified the ordinance under Revised Administrative Code – Sec. 2243 – C – that municipal council shall have authority to exercise discretionary powers regarding establishing fire limits in populous centers à empowers municipal government to require construction/repair permits, to charge fees for such permits

o    IN THIS CASE: there were no fire limits or safety regulations that the municipal council promulgated in order to set a standard in the type of building that can be safely constructed in the public plaza.

[Digest] Lopez vs. CA (1970)

Lopez publisher and owner of Manila Chronicle and Gatbonton (Editor) v. Court of Appeals and Cruz (1970)

Ponente: Fernando, J.

Facts:

o  January 1956 – Front-page story on the Manila Chronicle à Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector assigned to the Babuyan Islands, sent distress signals to US Airforce planes which forwarded such message to Manila

o    An American Army plane dropped emergency sustenance kits on the beach of the island which contained, among other things, a two way radio set. Using the radio set Cruz reported to the authorities in Manila that the locals were living in terror due to a series of killings committed on the island since Christmas of 1955.

o    Philippine defense forces (scout rangers) were immediately deployed to the babuyan claro. They were led by Major Wilfredo Encarnacion who discovered that Cruz only fabricated the story about the killings to get attention. Cruz merely wanted transportation home to Manila.

o    Major Encarnacion branded the fiasco as a “hoax” à the same word to be used by the newspapers who covered the same

o  January 13, 1956 - This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle, edited by Gatbonton devoted a pictorial article to it. It claimed that despite the story of Cruz being a hoax it brought to light the misery of the people living in that place, with almost everybody sick, only 2 individuals able to read and write and food and clothing being scarce

o  January 29, 1956 - This Week Magazineà in the "January News Quiz" made reference to Cruz as “a health inspector who suddenly felt "lonely" in his isolated post, cooked up a story about a murderer running loose on the island of Calayan so that he could be ferried back to civilization.”  à Called it “Hoax of the year”

o  In both issues photos of a Fidel Cruz were published but both photos were of a different person of the same name à Fidel G. Cruz former mayor, business man, contractor from Santa Maria, Bulacan

o    January 27, 1957 à published statements correcting their misprint and explained that confusion and error happened due to the rush to meet the Jan 13^th issue’s deadline

o  Cruz sued herein petitioners for libel in CFI Manila. Cruz won and was awarded P11,000 in damages (5k actual, 5k moral, 1k attorney’s fees)

o  CA affirmed CFI decision hence this case

Issue:

o  WON petitioners should be held liable for their error in printing the wrong Fidel Cruz’s photo in relation to the “hoax of the year”?

o    WON such error is sufficient ground for an action for libel to prosper?

Held:

Yes they are liable but damages awarded to Cruz is reduced to P1,000.00

Ratio:

1.       Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is harmful on its face by the fact that it exposes the injured party to more than trivial ridicule, whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant.

o  Citing Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui à libel is "malicious defamation, expressed either in writing, printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, ..., tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged or natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby "pose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,"  

o  Citing standard treatise of Newell on Slander and Libel à "Publication of a person's photograph in connection with an article libelous of a third person, is a libel on the person whose picture is published, where the acts set out in the article are imputed to such person."

o    In this case à 3^rd person was Cruz à his picture being published beside the article imputes him as the purveyor of the hoax of the year

2.       Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom however it also can not claim any talismanic immunity form constitutional limitations

o  State interest in press freedom à citing Justice Malcolm: Full discussion of public affairs is necessary for the maintenance of good governance… “Public officials must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comments on official acts”…”of course criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as an individual is less than the state, so must expected criticism be born for the common good.”

o  So long as it was done in good faith, the press should have the legal right to have and express their opinions on legal questions. To deny them that right would be to infringe upon freedom of the press.

o  “Last word on the subject” à Citing Quisumbing v. Lopez: Press should be given leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy

o  Freedom of the press ranks high in the hierarchy of legal values

o  TEST of LIABLITY à must prove there was actual malice in publishing the story/photo! (Note: but this was not done in this case)

4.       Citing Concepcion, CJ. à Correction of error in publishing does not wipe out the responsibility arising from the publication of the original article

o  Correction = Mitigating circumstance not a justifying circumstance!

Dissent: Dizon, J.

o  Manila Chronicle should be absolved because:

o    No evidence of actual malice

o    The article does not ascribe anything immoral or any moral turpitude to Cruz

o    The negligence performed by Manila Chronicle is this case should be considered “excusable negligence”

[Digest] Oregas vs. NLRC (2008)

Oregas v. NLRC (2008)

Quisumbing, J.

Facts:

·          Petitioners are employees of FVA manpower training center and Services who assigned them to work as valet parking attendants at the Dusit Hotel.

·          In 2000 petitioners were recalled from service in Dusit Hotel.

·          They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and several claims for wages against Dusit Hotel.

·          The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners are NOT employees of Dusit they are instead employees of FVA. Using the 4 fold test, manner and selection, payment of wages, power of dismissal and power to control conduct were all found to ultimately reside with FVA.

·          Court noted furthermore that when they were recalled they continued to be under the employ of FVA but because they were not assigned within the 6 months after their recall they were deemed constructively dismissed.

·          Petitioners assail the findings of the labor arbiter.

Doctrine:

·          FVA is registered with DOLE and DTI as a legitimate job contractor.

·          The employment contract and pay of the petitioners are all with FVA NOT DUSIT.

·          There is an FVA supervisor that is assigned with them in DUSIT.

·          They were duly informed by FVA that they would only be assigned to Dusit for 5 months.

Dusit paid FVA for the services it provided while FVA was the one who paid the employees.                                                                 

·          To establish employer-employee relations the ff are needed:

1. 1.        Manner of selection and engagement of the putative employees
2. 2.        Mode of payment of wages
3. 3.        Presence or absence of a power of dismissal
4. 4.        The presence or absence of a power to control the putative employee’s conduct [THIS IS MOST DETERMINATIVE]