Case digest PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Digest...

Description

Eastern shipping lines inc., vs. POEA Gr.no. 76633 Facts: The Widow filed a complaint against the Eastern Shipping Lines with POEA because her husband who was a chief officer of a ship was killed in an accident in japan. The complaint was based on a memorandum circular no. 2, issued by POEA which stipulated death benefits and burial for the family of overseas workers. Eastern Shipping lines questions the validity of the memorandum circular as violative of the principle of non delegation of legislative power.

Issue: is the issuance of the said memorandum is a violation of non delegation of legislative power? Ruling: No. “ the governing board of the administration (POEA) as hereunder provided shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the administration(POEA).” As provided in section4 of the executive order no. 797. Conclusion: The supreme court held that there was a valid delegation of legislative powers.

US vs. Ang Tong Ho Facts: Ang Tang Ho was caught selling a ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos on august 6, 1919. The price of eighty cents is higher than the price that was fixed by executive order 53. Defendant was found guilty and now assails the constitutionality of act 2868 for invalid delegation of legislative powers.

Issue: whether or not Act. 2868 is constitutional.

Ruling: Yes, act 2868 in so far as it undertakes to authorized the governor general in his discretion to issue a proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in violation of the price of the price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in violation of the proclamation a crime.

Conclusion : Act 2868 is unconstitutional and void

People vs. Rosenthal & Osmena Facts: Jacob Rosenthal and Nicasio Osmena were charged in the court of first instance in manila with having violated act no. 2581, commonly known as the blue sky law. The court of first instance of manila granted Rosenthal a separate trial so that the defendants may present their proofs separately. Osmena sold 163 shares to nine different parties and Rosenthal sold 21 shares to seven others, without first obtaining the corresponding written permit or license from the insular treasurer of the commonwealth of the Philippines, as by law required. Issue: Whether there is undue delegation of legislative authority to the insular treasurer. Ruling: the certificate of permit to be issued under act must recite that the person, partnership, corporation applying thereof” has complied with the provisions of this act”, and this requirement, construed in relation to the other provisions of the law, means that a certificate of permit shall be issued by the insular treasurer when the provisions of act 2581 have been complied with. Conclusion: the supreme court upheld the assailed decision....