Case Digest (G.R. No. 175241) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, decided on February 24, 2010, petitioners Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), represented by its National President Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, and lawyers H. Harry L. Roque and Joel R. Butuyan sought a permit from Manila Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza to hold a rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. On June 16, 2006, Director Gerino Tolentino Jr., acting by authority of the Mayor, issued a permit for the same date and time but relocated the venue to Plaza Miranda. The IBP received the permit only on June 19, 2006, and, feeling aggrieved, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on June 21, 2006 (CA-G.R. SP No. 94949). When the Court of Appeals did not resolve their petition within 24 hours, the IBP filed a similar petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 172951), which was denied as moot and academic. Despite these proceedings, the IBP proceeded with the Case Digest (G.R. No. 175241) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Rally Permit Application
- Petitioners Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), represented by National President Jose Anselmo Cadiz, and lawyers H. Harry L. Roque and Joel R. Butuyan, sought to hold a public rally.
- On June 15, 2006, IBP filed with the Office of the Manila Mayor an application for a permit to rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006 from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
- Issuance and Modification of Permit
- On June 16, 2006, Acting Director Gerino Tolentino, Jr., by authority of Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza, issued a permit setting the rally venue at Plaza Miranda instead of Mendiola Bridge.
- IBP received the modified permit on June 19, 2006 and protested the alteration of the venue.
- Judicial Proceedings in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
- On June 21, 2006, IBP filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 94949), contesting the modification. The CA did not resolve it within the 24-hour rule.
- On June 22, 2006, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 172951), which was later denied as moot and academic in resolutions of July 26, August 30, and November 20, 2006.
- Conduct of Rally and Criminal Complaint
- Despite the permit, IBP proceeded to rally at Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006 after coordination with P/Supt. Arturo Paglinawan of the Manila Police District; the assembly dispersed peacefully.
- On June 26, 2006, the MPD filed Criminal Information No. 06I-12501 against Cadiz for violating the Public Assembly Act by holding the rally at a venue not indicated in the permit.
- Subsequent CA Rulings and Present SC Petition
- The CA, in two assailed issuances dated June 28 and October 26, 2006, ruled the petition moot, without merit, and denied reconsideration.
- Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court, to which respondent filed a Comment and petitioners filed a Reply.
Issues:
- Preliminary Issues
- Whether the petition is moot and academic or falls under the exception “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
- Whether a prejudicial question arising in the related criminal action bars resolution of the civil petition.
- Merits Issue
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the modification of the rally permit venue does not constitute grave abuse of discretion under the Public Assembly Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression and assembly.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)