SAMEER V CABILES

FACTS:

Petitioner, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc., is a recruitment and placement agency.

Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired thus signed a one-year employment contractfor a monthly salary of
NT$15,360.00. Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997.
She alleged that in her employment contract, she agreed to work as quality control for one year. In Taiwan,
she was asked to work as a cutter.

Sameer claims that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without prior
notice, that she was terminated and that she should immediately report to their office to get her salary and
passport. She was asked to prepare for immediate repatriation. Joy claims that she was told that from
June 26 to July 14, 1997, she only earned a total of NT$9,000.15 According to her, Wacoal deducted
NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.

On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC against petitioner and
Wacoal. LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC reversed LAs decision. CA affirmed the ruling of the
National Labor Relations Commission finding respondent illegally dismissed and awarding her three
months worth of salary, the reimbursement of the cost of her repatriation, and attorneys fees

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to the unexpired portion of her salary due to illegal dismissal.

HELD:

YES. The Court held that the award of the three-month equivalent of respondents salary should be
increased to the amount equivalent to the unexpired term of the employment contract.

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court ruled that the
clause or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less is unconstitutional
for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.

Astatute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all.

The Court said that they are aware that the clause or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
term, whichever is less was reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042 upon promulgation of Republic Act No.
10022 in 2010.

Ruling on the constitutional issue

In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch or office of the government may exercise
its powers in any manner inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of the existence of any law that
supports such exercise. The Constitution cannot be trumped by any other law. All laws must be read in
light of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity.
Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity
cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or
provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so
changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.

The Court observed that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in RepublicAct. No. 10022, violates the
constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.96 Petitioner as well as the Solicitor General have
failed to show any compelling change in the circumstances that would warrant us to revisit the precedent.

The Court declared, once again, the clause, or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is less in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042
is declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V GSIS

Fact:
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine
Government under Proclamation 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to
51% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC). In a close bidding held on 18
September 1995 only two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation,
which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a
Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00
per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the
winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, the Manila Prince Hotel
matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad in a letter to GSIS dated 28
September 1995. Manila Prince Hotel sent a managers check to the GSIS in a subsequent letter, but which
GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of
the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by GSIS and consummated with
Renong Berhad, Manila Prince Hotel came to the Court on prohibition and mandamus.

Issue:
1. w/n the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-executing.
2. w/n the 51% share is part of the national patrimony.

Held:
A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or
enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be
enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and
extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be
determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the
subject is referred to the legislature for action.

The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power
on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of
constitutional right and make it more available. Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean
that the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable. Hence, unless it is expressly
provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that
all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring
legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify
the mandate of the fundamental law. In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further
guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not
require any legislation to put it in operation.
In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of
national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could
have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It also
refers to Filipinos intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. In the present case, Manila Hotel has become a
landmark, a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it
first opened in 1912, a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various significant
events which have shaped Philippine history. In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and
concessions, especially on matters involving national patrimony, when a choice has to be made between a
qualified foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the former.

The Supreme Court directed the GSIS, the Manila Hotel Corporation, the Committee on Privatization and
the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel to cease and desist from selling 51% of the Share of the
MHC to Renong Berhad, and to accept the matching bid of Manila Prince Hotel at P44 per share and
thereafter execute the necessary agreements and document to effect the sale, to issue the necessary
clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for the purpose.