NEWS REPORT SCRIPT
Garmyll: Good day 007IHM! And welcome to today’s special news report, I’m Garmyll Ruz.
Amber: I’m Amber Razon
Cres: I’m Cres Pangilinan
Yao: I’m Monica Yao
ALL: And this is “Legal Case in Philippine History and JPL as an Associate Justice”
IMTRODUCTION
Garmyll: Good day, and welcome to today’s special news report, where we dive into some of the most
significant legal cases in Philippine history. These cases have shaped the nation's legal landscape and
continue influencing the judiciary today. From Angara vs. Electoral Commission, a case on the separation of
powers, to Marcos vs. Nalundasan, a political rivalry, we will explore the key legal principles and their
impact on the rule of law. We'll also look at Calalang vs. Williams, which delves into the balance between
public welfare and individual rights, and Ang Tibay vs. CIR, a case on labor rights. Finally, we’ll discuss
Cuevo vs. Barredo, a case on employer liability.
As we conclude, we’ll reflect on the legacy and judicial philosophy of Jose P. Laurel during his time as an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, examining how his decisions and legal opinions have left a lasting
mark on the Philippines.
Garmyll: Now we’ll dive into “Angara vs. Electoral Commission” . We have Mr. Razon.
ANGARA VS. LEGAL COMMISSION
Amber: Thank you, Garmyll.
Amber: G.R. No. L-45081, a legal case of from the Republic of the Philippines, which involves Angara and
the electoral commission. The case centers on Angara's election as a member of the National Assembly for
Tayabas, which was contested by Pedro Ynsua. The election was held on September 17, 1935, where
Angara was proclaimed the winner. The Supreme Court is asked to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the
Electoral Commission from considering Ynsua's protest. The Supreme Court must determine whether it has
jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and whether the Commission acted beyond its authority in
accepting Ynsua's protest. It also states that the National Assembly's resolution confirming the election
could potentially limit the Electoral Commission's ability to entertain protests filed after that confirmation.
They resolved the issue by determining that the Electoral Commission acted within its jurisdiction when it
adopted its resolution on December 9, 1935, which fixed the deadline for filing protests against the election
results. The Supreme Court pointed out that the resolution of the National Assembly on December 3, 1935,
they refused to accept Ynsua's protest to the election, affirming that the time and manner of filing contests in
the election of members of the National Assembly is vested in the Electoral Commission.
Cres: Up next is the case “Marcos vs. Nalundasan” We have Ms. Yao. Kindly bring us the latest.
MARCOS VS NALUNDASAN
Yao: Yes, Thank You.
Yao: During the 1934 elections, Julio Nalundasan was able to win the office of representative position in
Batac, Ilocos Norte, against Mariano Marcos. They continued the rivalry in 1935 as an assemblyman, and
Julio Nalundasan succeeded in the position. As a celebration for Nalundasan’s triumph, his supporters
paraded in the city and around the property of the Marcoses. Mariano Marcos was infuriated as he lost
against his rival a second time. On September 20, 1935, in Batac, Ilocos Norte, Julio Nalundasan was
assassinated in his house.
The first accused individual of murdering Nalundasan was a businessman in Batac, named Nicasio Layaoen.
He was later acquitted by the court. Three years after Nalundasan’s death, the case became active and
Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, and Quirino Lizardo were prosecuted for the crime of
murder on December 7, 1938, in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. This case became controversial
due to the political rivalry of the two families. The defendants filed a complaint on false testimonies against
Calixto Aguinaldo, who claimed to be the principal witness against the Marcoses even before the conclusion
of the trial. Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo were found guilty of the crime of murder. Mariano
Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, and Quirino Lizardo were fined 200 pesos for contempt of court.
Garmyll: Up next is “Calalang vs. Williams” . We have Ms. Pangilinan, over to you.
CALALANG VS WILLIAM
Cres: Of course, Thank you
Cres: The July 17th, 1940 resolution to ease the traffic in the streets of Manila, was recommended by the
Secretary of Public Transportation and Communication and the Director of Public Works; It was stipulated
that to resolve the problem of traffic and road welfare, is to ban animal-drawn vehicles and other similar
vehicles from passing along Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmarinas Street,
from 7:30 a. m. to 12:30 p. m. and from 1:30 p. m. to 5:30 p.m; as well as Rizal Avenue, between the
railroad crossing at Antipolo Street and Azcarraga Street, from 7 a. m. to 11 p.m, lasting for one year.
Maximo Calalang, a taxpaying private citizen of Manila, initiated legal action against several government
officials, contesting their proposed resolution to the city’s traffic and road welfare issues. He argued that this
ban on animal-drawn vehicles was violating human rights and was an undue use of legislative power.
However, despite Calalang petitions, the Supreme Court ruled this resolution as valid as the reasoning for
this ban was to ease traffic and public road safety in Manila; In addition, The Courted stated that the
government had the authority to uphold such regulation because it was for the necessary betterment of the
community, even if it temporarily inconvenienced a few individuals.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Calang’s Petition. Stating that they upheld the constitutionality of
Commonwealth Act No. 548, which authorized the government to regulate traffic. It clarified that this law
didn't give officials the power to make new laws, but rather the authority to enforce existing ones. Hence the
flexibility of approving this law of banning animal-drawn vehicles without violating undue use of legislative
power.
Yao: Thank you for that! Shifting our attention back to Mr. Razon with the case of “Ang Tibay vs. CIR”
ANG TIBAY VS CIR
Amber: Ang Tibay vs. CIR is a legal case from the Republic of the Philippines on February 27, 1940,
specifically G.R. No. L-46496. The case revolves around allegations of unfair labor practices by the
employer which is Toribio Teodoro. He is accused of discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc.
while favoring the National Workers Brotherhood, and later was found guilty of such practices. There were
claims that Teodoro's assertion of a leather shortage was a scheme to systematically discharge members of
the National Labor Union, Inc., raising suspicions about the legitimacy of his actions. The National Labor
Union, Inc. argued that Teodoro's claims of a leather shortage were false and part of a scheme to
systematically discharge its members, which they sought to prove with additional evidence. The case
includes the termination of employment contracts without a fixed duration and the implications of a forced
labor stoppage on employee status. The Supreme Court found that the record lacked substantial evidence to
support the exclusion of the 89 laborers based on their union affiliation, noting that the proceedings were
filled with contradictory statements from the opposing counsel. They also noted that it has jurisdiction over
disputes affecting employers and employees and is tasked with promoting industrial peace through various
means.
This case was resolved by granting the motion for a new trial, allowing the National Labor Union, Inc. to
present additional evidence relevant to the issues at hand. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Court of
Industrial Relations must act independently and provide clear reasoning for its decisions, ensuring that all
parties understand the issue. The Court found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the
exclusion of the 89 laborers. Toribio Teodoro was eventually found guilty of unfair labor practices.
Garmyll: Thank you! Now for an inside scoop on “Cuevo Vs. Barredo” Again we have, Ms. Yao.
CUEVO VS BARREDO
Yao: Silvestra Cuevo filed a complaint against Fausto Barredo after her son, Anastacio Lozano, drowned
while working as a carpenter on a bridge construction project in the Pasig River. During a typhoon, a log
used for construction became loose and was carried away by the river's strong current. Upon seeing this,
Yoshio Tagashira, the foreman, ordered Lozano to retrieve the log, warning him they would otherwise have
to pay for it. Lozano, being a good swimmer, attempted to recover the log but got drowned.
The primary issue was whether Barredo, as an employer, could be held liable for Lozano’s death due to the
negligence of his foreman under Act No. 1874, which mandated employer responsibility for injuries or death
caused by employer or supervisor negligence.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cuevo, reversing the previous decisions acquitting Barredo. The Court
found that the foreman acted negligently by ordering Lozano to risk his life to retrieve the log under
threatening circumstances. This negligence was credited to Barredo as an employer because Tagashira's
order was within his authority as a supervisor. The Court held that, under Act No. 1874, the employer was
responsible for ensuring the safety of employees from negligence in supervisory commands. Furthermore,
the law presumed employer negligence when an employee dies in such conditions, rendering Barredo liable
for Lozano’s death.
CONCLUSION
Garmyll: Jose P. Laurel was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines who was
appointed to the Supreme Court in 1936 by then President Manuel L. Quezon.
Among his/their most famous cases would be Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936). In this case, Laurel’s
opinion brought understanding on the doctrine of judicial review under which the courts can rule on
legislative actions. His ruling helped emphasize the concept of judicial review as a means for the Judiciary
to balance the powers of the other branches of government and protect the Constitution from potential abuse
by the Executive or Legislative branches.
During her time as an Associate Justice, Laurel was able to join the emerging Commonwealth of the
Philippines. Most of his decisions were always a middle ground between backing government influence on
matters of authority and respecting civil liberties. This was evidenced in this approach as a way of showing
that he believed in the law for the state and the law for the people.
Cres: Furthermore, as a judge, Laurel advocated respect for democratic institutions. He felt that the judiciary
should be self-limiting, which means that it should not trespass into the realm of the other two branches of
government except when required to do so.
In conclusion, let’s go back to the question: How do we see José P. Laurel as an Associate Justice? He for
sure greatly contributed to the Philippine judiciary when he served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court. Some of the social changes that he influenced through his cases include constitutional law that shapes
the current legal systems today. And though his later political career may have been more problematic, his
tenure on the bench demonstrates his legal skill as well as his dedication to the Constitution
Garmyll: This is it for today! 007IHM. Again this is Garmyll Ruz.
Amber: I’m Amber Razon
Cres: I’m Cres Pangilinan
Yao: I’m Monica Yao
ALL: Until the next latest scoop of news. Thank You!
