Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

History of Concepts and Intellectual History

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Rating

Showing Page:
1/38
G.R. No. L-44896 July 31, 1936
RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER vs. MANUEL V.
MORAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila
Facts: This petition is for a writ of prohibition
overruled with a view to preventing the Court of
First Instance of Manila from taking cognizance
of the criminal action filed against him. The
petitioner was an accredited honorary consul of
Uruguay at Manila. He was charged in the Court
of First Instance of Manila of falsification of a
private document. He objected to the
jurisdiction of the court on the ground that both
under the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the Philippines the court
below had no jurisdiction to try him. His objection
was overruled hence this present petition.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance
of Manila has jurisdiction to try the petitioner.
Held: The counsel for the petitioner contend that
the CIF of Manila has no jurisdiction according to
Aticle III Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution
which stipulated that the Supreme Court of the
United States has original jurisdiction in all cases
affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and
consuls, and such jurisdiction which excludes the
courts of the Philippines and that that such
jurisdiction is conferred exclusively upon the
Supreme Court of the Philippines. Although
section 17 of Act No. 136 vests in the Supreme
Court the original jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, such jurisdictiona was
also conferred on the Courts of First Instance by
the Code of Civil Procedure. (Act No. 190, secs.
197, 217, 222, 226, and 525.) It results that the
original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by
the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands was
not exclusive of, but concurrent with, that of the
Courts of First Instance. Hence, the Court of
Instance has jurisdiction over the petitioner.
G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000
JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Facts: Petitioner is an economist working with the
Asian Development Bank (ADB). He was
charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of
grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory
words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal.
Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant
issued by the MeTC. On April 13, 1994, the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City,
acting pursuant to an advice from the
Department of Foreign Affairs that petitioner
enjoyed immunity from legal processes under
Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB
and the Philippine Government regarding the
Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter
Agreement) dismissed the two criminal cases
without notice to the prosecution. On a petition
for certiorari and mandamus filed by the People,
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160,
annulled and set aside the order of the
Metropolitan Trial Court dismissing the criminal
cases. After the motion for reconsideration filed
by the petitioner was denied, petitioner elevated
the case to this Court via a petition for review
arguing that he is covered by immunity under
the Agreement and that no preliminary
investigation was held before the criminal cases
were filed in court.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is covered by
immunity.
Held: The DFA's determination that a certain
person is covered by immunity is only preliminary
which has no binding effect in courts. In
receiving ex-parte the DFA's advice and in motu
propio dismissing the two criminal cases without
notice to the prosecution, the latter's right to due
process was violated. Furthermore, the immunity
mentioned under Section 45 of the Agreement is
not absolute, but subject to the exception that
the act was done in "official capacity." It should
have been determined first if the case falls within
the ambit of Section 45(a) thus, the prosecutor
should have been given the chance to rebut the
DFA Protocol. Finally, slandering a person could
not possibly be covered by the immunity
agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime, such as defamation, in
the name of official duty. Hence, the petitioner is
covered by immunity.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/38
G.R. No. L-35131 November 29, 1972
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and DR.
LEONCE VERSTUYFT vs. HON. BENJAMIN H.
AQUINO, as Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court
of First Instance of Rizal
Facts: The present petition is an original action
for certiorari and prohibition to set aside
respondent judge's refusal to quash a search
warrant issued by him at the instance of
respondents Constabulary Offshore Action
Center (COSAC) officers for the search and
seizure of the personal effects of Verstuyft of the
WHO (World Health Organization)
notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic
immunity, as duly recognized by the Executive
branch of the government and to prohibit
respondent judge from further proceedings in
the matter.
The Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo
pleaded to Hon. Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is
entitled to immunity from search in respect for his
personal baggage as accorded to members of
diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host
Agreement and further requested for the
suspension of the search warrant. The Solicitor
General accordingly joined the petitioner for the
quashal of the search warrant but respondent
judge nevertheless summarily denied the quash
hence, the petition at bar.
Issue: Whether or not personal effect of WHO
Officer Dr. Verstuyft can be exempted from
search and seizure under the diplomatic
immunity.
Held: The executive branch of the Phils has
expressly recognized that Verstuyft is entitled to
diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions
of the Host Agreement. The DFA formally advised
respondent judge of the Philippine Government's
official position. The Solicitor General, as principal
law officer of the gorvernment, likewise expressly
affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic
immunity and asked for the quashal of the
search warrant.
The unfortunate fact remains that respondent
judge chose to rely on the suspicion of
respondents COSAC officers "that the other
remaining crates unopened contain
contraband items"
The provisions of Republic Act 75 declares as null
and void writs or processes sued out or
prosecuted whereby inter alia the person of an
ambassador or public minister is arrested or
imprisoned or his goods or chattels are seized or
attached and makes it a penal offense for "every
person by whom the same is obtained or
prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and
every officer concerned in executing it" to obtain
or enforce such writ or process.
The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge
acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse
of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the
search warrant issued by him in disregard of the
diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft. The
writs of certiorari and prohibition from the
petitioners were granted.
G.R. No. 85750 September 28, 1990
INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION
COMMISSION vs. HON. PURA CALLEJA IN HER
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF
LABOR RELATIONS
Facts:
As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight
of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South
Vietnam's communist rule confronted the
international community.
In response to this crisis, on 23 February 1981, an
Agreement was forged between the Philippine
Government and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees whereby an
operating center for processing Indo-Chinese
refugees for eventual resettlement to other
countries was to be established in Bataan .
ICMC was one of those accredited by the
Philippine Government to operate the refugee
processing center in Morong, Bataan. It was
incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of
the Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in
international humanitarian and voluntary work. It
is duly registered with the United Nations
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and
enjoys Consultative Status, Category II. As an
international organization rendering voluntary
and humanitarian services in the Philippines, its
activities are parallel to those of the International

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/38

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up

Unformatted Attachment Preview

G.R. No. L-44896             July 31, 1936 RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER vs. MANUEL V. MORAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila Facts: This petition is for a writ of prohibition overruled with a view to preventing the Court of First Instance of Manila from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him. The petitioner was an accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila. He was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that both under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction to try him. His objection was overruled hence this present petition. Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the petitioner. Held: The counsel for the petitioner contend that the CIF of Manila has no jurisdiction according to Aticle III Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution which stipulated that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, and such jurisdiction which excludes the courts of the Philippines and that that such jurisdiction is conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Although section 17 of Act No. 136 vests in the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, s ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4