G.R. No. 202384, May 04, 2021

FACTS:

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Las Piñas enacted City Ordinance No. 343-97, Series of 1997 (City Ordinance No. 343-97), which declared Marcos Alvarez Avenue as a public road. South Rich Acres (SRA) and Top Service filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Damages against the City of Las Piñas to annul City Ordinance. SRA is the present legal owner of the seven parcels of land (subject lots) which formed part of a private road network, collectively referred to as Marcos Alvarez Avenue and the City Ordinance No. 343-97 in effect deprived SRA of its ownership over the subject lots without just compensation

Royal Asia Multi-Properties, Inc. (RAMPI) filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Answer in Intervention on the ground that it has legal interest in the upholding of the validity and constitutionality of City Ordinance No. 343-97 because SRA and Top Service had been unjustifiably demanding payment from them for the use of Marcos Alvarez Avenue. It asserts that under PD 1216, the open spaces and roads in residential subdivisions are beyond the commerce of men, having been automatically and directly identified for public use and vested in favor of the then Municipality of Las Piñas. Consequently, EPCIB substituted RAMPI as intervenor-defendant because all the rights and interests over the Royal South Subdivision had already been transferred, conveyed, and assigned by RAMPI to EPCIB.

No. L-81958. June 30,1988

FACTS:

The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc (PASEI), engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement, challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment.

The Department Order No 1 or the “Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers “ is discriminatory since it “does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills;” and that it is violative of the right to travel.

It also contended that the passage of the Department Order is not in consonance with Section 3, of Article XIII of the Constitution, providing for worker participation “in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.” Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was passed in the absence of prior consultations.