ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-7065   April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL<br /><br />096 Phil 786

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-7065. April 13, 1955.]

    TEOFILA S. TIBON, Petitioner, v. AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

    Crystal, Ruiz, Trinidad & Della for Petitioner.

    Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Augusto Luciano for Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; COMPENSATION FOR DEATH IN LINE OF DUTY; POLICE OFFICERS OF CHARTERED CITIES. — The provisions of Republic Act No. 784, granting compensation to heirs of members of municipal police forces and fire departments who die in line of duty, are not applicable to members of the police and fire departments of chartered cities.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    This is an appeal from a decision of the Auditor General dismissing the claim of Mrs. Teofila S. Tibon, widow of Sergeant Catalino Tibon of the Cebu City police department for compensation for the death of the latter in line of duty, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 784. Sergeant Catalino Tibon of Cebu City died on February 26, 1953 while making his tour of inspection of the policemen assigned in the night beats, the accidental death having been occasioned when the police wagon of the police department in which he was riding turned turtle. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Republic Act No. 784 are applicable to the members of the police force of chartered cities, as well as to those of municipalities, and to deny the benefits of said Act to police forces of chartered cities would make the law discriminatory or would amount to a denial of equal protection of the law to those equally situated.

    The provisions of the law involved in this appeal are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE FORCES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS WHO DIE OR ARE DISABLED IN LINE OF DUTY.

    x       x       x


    SECTION 1. When any member of the police force or fire department of a municipality is:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Killed in line of duty, his heirs, shall be entitled to a compensation of one thousand pesos plus two hundred pesos for funeral expenses;

    x       x       x


    SEC. 3. The expenses in carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be borne in equal shares by the National Government and the municipality concerned.

    SEC. 4. There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one hundred thousand pesos to cover the share of the National Government for the payment of the compensations provided for herein."cralaw virtua1aw library

    A perusal of the provisions of the law does not justify the petitioner’s contention that it was to be applicable to members of the police and fire departments of chartered cities as well as to those of municipalities. The law uses the word "municipality" in its title, in section 1 and in section 3. In no provision of the law is there mention of cities or chartered cities. The reason for extending the beneficent provisions of the Act to municipalities alone is found in the poor financial condition of municipalities, which is not true of chartered cities. As a rule, municipalities that have grown both in population and in resources have been given charters and their powers of taxation increased and extended beyond the scope of those ordinarily granted to municipalities. This enables them to raise the necessary funds for the improvement and advancement of the city, opportunities which are not afforded municipalities. In view of the expanded sources of income of chartered cities and their better financial conditions, the legislature evidently did not find it necessary to extend the same help that it extends to municipalities in Republic Act No. 784, to chartered cities.

    The second contention of the petitioner, that the denial of the application of the provisions of Republic Act No. 784 to chartered cities would render the law discriminatory, is without merit. As already indicated above, there are fundamental differences between municipalities and chartered cities, both with respect to their resources and to the scope of their powers. Municipalities and chartered cities cannot, therefore, be considered of the same condition nor as equally situated in both resources and powers such as to demand their equal consideration at the hands of the central government.

    The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against Petitioner-Appellant.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-7065   April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL<br /><br />096 Phil 786


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED