DIGEST/JAN CARLO A. TISO/ BROTHER MARIANO “MIKE” Z. VELARDE v. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY, GR No. 159357, 2004-04-28

 

BROTHER MARIANO “MIKE” Z. VELARDE v. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY, GR No. 159357, 2004-04-28

 

Facts:

Before the Supreme Court is a Petition for Review [1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

On January 28, 2003, SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief ("SJS Petition") before the RTC-Manila against Velarde and his aforesaid co-respondents sought the interpretation the separation of church and state and a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote for a specified candidate.

The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss, and the Motions for Reconsideration filed by Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive Minister Eraño Manalo, which raised no new arguments other than those already considered in the motions to dismiss... the trial court said that it had jurisdiction over the Petition, because "in praying for a determination as to whether the actions imputed to the respondents are violative of Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Law, [the Petition] has... raised only a question of law.

After its essay on the legal issue, however, the trial court failed to include a dispositive portion in its assailed decision. Thus, Velarde and Soriano filed separate Motions for Reconsideration which, as mentioned earlier, were denied by the lower court.

Respondent SJS asserts that in order to maintain a petition for declaratory relief, a cause of action need not be alleged or proven. Supposedly, for such petition to prosper, there need not be any violation of a right, breach of duty or actual wrong committed by one party... against the other.

Issues:

A.

Procedural Issues

Did the Petition for Declaratory Relief raise a justiciable controversy? Did it state a cause of action? Did respondent have any legal standing to file the Petition for Declaratory Relief?

B.

Substantive Issues

"1.

Did the RTC Decision conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court?

May religious leaders like herein petitioner, Bro. Mike Velarde, be prohibited from endorsing candidates for public office? Corollarily, may they be banned from campaigning against said candidates?"

Ruling:

Section 1 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which deals with petitions for declaratory relief... an action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The purpose of the remedy is to interpret or to determine the validity of the written instrument and to seek a judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties thereunder.

The essential requisites of the action are as follows: (1) there is a justiciable controversy;

(2) the controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.

Justiciable Controversy

The SJS Petition for Declaratory Relief fell short of this test. It miserably... failed to allege an existing controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the named respondents therein. Further, the Petition did not sufficiently state what specific legal right of the petitioner was violated by the respondents therein; and what particular act or acts of... the latter were in breach of its rights, the law or the Constitution.

the SJS Petition stated no ultimate facts.

SJS merely speculated or anticipated without factual moorings that... the petitioner and his co-respondents below had endorsed or threatened to endorse a candidate or candidates for elective offices; and that such actual or threatened endorsement" will enable [them] to elect men to public office who [would] in turn be forever beholden to their leaders, enabling them to control the government" and posing a clear and present danger of serious erosion of the people's faith in the electoral process and reinforcing their belief that religious leaders determine the ultimate result of elections which would then be violative of the separation clause.

The failure of a complaint to state a cause of action is a ground for its outright dismissal. However, in special civil actions for declaratory relief, the concept of a cause of action under ordinary civil actions does not strictly apply. The reason for this exception is that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder.

Principles:

A decision that does not conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution and the law is void and deemed legally inexistent. To be valid, decisions should comply with the form, the procedure and the substantive requirements laid out in the

Constitution, the Rules of Court and relevant circulars/orders of the Supreme Court. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court hereby discusses these forms, procedures and requirements.

A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.

An initiatory complaint or petition filed with the trial court should contain "a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim

A cause of action is an act or an omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of another, causing injury to the latter. Its essential elements are the following: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of... the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) such defendant's act or omission that is violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the former to the latter.