001 Philippine Blooming Mills Employees

Org. v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc.,

51 SCRA 189, June 5, 1973 (hierarchy of
rights).
002 Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 P 635 (due process
in administrative proceedings)
003 Gov’t. of Hongkong Special
Administrative Region v. Munoz,
G.R.207342, August 16, 2016
004 ADMU v. Capulong 222 SCRA 644
(fraternity)
005 Mison v. Gallegas, G.R. No. 210759,
June 23, 2015 (in relation to writ of amparo)
006 Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31 (pilot)
007 People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136
(“manager”, void for vagueness)
008 British American Tobacco v. Camacho
562 SCRA 511 and (MR) 585 SCRA 36
(expansive tax category)
009 Churchill v. Rafferty - 32 PHIL. 580 (read
with People v. Fajardo) (billboards as
nuisance)
010 People v. Fajardo - 104 PHIL. 443 (not
allowed to build on his lot as it covers the
view
from plaza)
011 Balacuit v. CFI - 163 SCRA 182
(discount to children in movie house)
National Dev’t Co. and New AG.R.ix v. Phil
Vet. Bank - 192 SCRA 257 (dissolved
mortgages)
012 Lucena G.R.and Terminal v. JAC Liner,
452 SCRA 174 (exclusive franchise)
013 White Light v. City of Manila 576 SCRA
416 (wash up rates)
014 Legaspi v. City of Cebu, G.R. No.
159110, December 10, 2013 (immobilizing of
car)
015 Remman Enterprises v. Professional
Regulatory Board, G.R. 197676, Feb 4 ,
2014
(real estate developer’s right to dispose
property)
 OCT. 21, 2019
001 **White Light v. City of - UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDINANCE ON WASH RATE PROHIBITION
Manila 576 SCRA 416 (wash up
rates

002 **Legaspi v. City of Cebu, - CONSTITUTIONAL ORDINANCE ON CLAMPING

G.R. No. 159110, December 10, - The clamping of the vehicle was argued to be “punishment without hearing” –
2013 (immobilizing of car) WRONG. It is akin to in flagrante delicto, lockout of a restaurant with unsanitary
- LGC provides the LGUs can enact regulations to ensure traffic enforcements

003 **Remman Enterprises v. - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ON LICENSURE REQUIREMENT OF REAL ESTATE

Professional Regulatory Board, BROKERS
G.R. 197676, Feb 4 , 2014 (real
estate developer’s right to
dispose property)
004 **Disini v. Secretary of -
Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb
18, 2014 (Cybercrime Law)
005 **Zarate v. Aquino III, G.R.
No. 220028, November 10,
2015 (writ of amparo/habeas
data)
X**Ormoc Sugar Central v.
Ormoc City - L-23794 February
17, 1968 (law specific for Ormoc
Sugar Central) (SHORT, SELF-
EXPLANATORY)
006**Central Bank Employees
Ass’n v. Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299 (read
with *British American Tobacco
v. Sec of Finance, 2008)
(classification based on salary-
relative constitutionality)
X**Yrasuegi v. PAL 569 SCRA
467 (obese flight attendant)
(NOTE THE FACTS AND
RELEVANT RULING)
X**Villanueva, v. JBC – 755
SCRA 182 (REPEAT)
X **Ferrer v. Bautista – 760  City ordinance on houses and garbage
SCRA 69
007 **1-UTAK v. COMELEC – Regulation (Sec 7(g) items (5) & (6) of Res No. 9615) : Prohibition to post campaign
755 SCRA 441 ads on vehicles
Ruling:
1. Regulation is prior restraint
2. Not content neutral
3. COMELEC may only regulate franchise not ownership
4. National Press Club has no app (airtime and space is part of franchise)
5. Free speech of owners of PUVs are not govtal interest
6. Not justified under the captive-audience doctrine
7. EPC violation

In sum the Regulation violate the free speech clause; they are content-neutral
regulations, which are not within the constitutional power of the COMELEC issue and
are not necessary to further the objective of ensuring equal time, space and
opportunity to the candidates. They are not only repugnant to the free speech clause,
but are also violative of the equal protection clause, as there is no substantial
distinction between owners of PUVs and transport terminals and owners of private
vehicles and other properties.
X **Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA –
235 SCRA 111 (wiretap)
X **Zulueta v. CA - 253 SCRA
699 (husband and wife privacy)
008 **People v. Marti - 193
SCRA 57 (search by private
person)
009 **Vivares v. St. Theresa’s
College – 727 SCRA 92
(facebook)
010 **Lee v. Ilagan – 738 SCRA
59
011 **Hing v. Choachuy, G.R.
No. 179736, June 26, 2013
(AIII, Sec. 1)
012 **Near v. Minnesota - 238
US 697 (malicious articles
against officials)
013 **Freedman v. Maryland -
380 US 51 (judicial
determination)
X**New York Times Co. v. US -
403 US 713 (top secret
information) (1-PAGE
MAJORITY DECISION; BUT
THE CONCURRING OPINIONS
ARE WORTH READING IF
YOU HAVE THE FREE TIME)
012 **People v. Perez - 45
PHIL. 599 (dangerous tendency
rule)
X **Dennis v. US - 341 US 494
(overthrow of government)
013 **Gonzales v. COMELEC -
27 SCRA 835 (early nomination
of candidates)
014 **Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. v.
Judge Capulong - 160 SCRA
865 (public figure)
X **Rubin v. Coors Brewing -
131 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1995) (liquor
labels)
X**Policarpio v. Manila Times -
5 SCRA 148 (protected if true,
and done in good faith) (SELF-
EXPLANATORY; FREEDOM
OF SPEECH IS NOT
ABSOLUTE)
015 **Lopez v. CA - 34 SCRA
116 (wrong picture of person)
016 **Miller v. California - 37 L.
Ed. 2d 419 (mailing of adult
materials)
017 **Gonzales v. Kalaw-
Katigbak - 137 SCRA 717
(obscene movie)
018 **Pita v. CA - 178 SCRA
362