U.S. v. Tambunting, 41 Phil 364 (1921) Concept of Things and Property

U.S. v.
Tambunting, 41 Phil 364 [1921]

Concept of things and property
Facts:
On January of the year 1918, the accused and his wife became occupants of the upper floor of
the house situated at No. 443, Calle Evangelista, in the city of Manila. In this house the Manila
Gas Corporation had previously installed apparatus for the delivery of gas on both the upper and
lower floors, consisting of the necessary piping and a gas meter, which last mentioned apparatus
was installed below. When the occupants at whose request this installation had been made
vacated the premises, the gas company disconnected the gas pipe and removed the meter, thus
cutting off the supply of gas from said premises.
Upon June 2, 1919, one of the inspectors of the gas company visited the house in question and
found that gas was being used, without the knowledge and consent of the gas company, for
cooking in the quarters occupied by the defendant and his wife: to effect which a short piece of
iron pipe had been inserted in the gap where the gas meter had formerly been placed, and piece
of rubber tubing had been used to connect the gas pipe of rubber tubing had been used to connect
the gas pipe in kitchen with the gas stove, or plate, used for cooking.
Issue:
Whether gas can be the subject of larceny (larceny involves the trespassory taking (caption) and
carrying away (asportation, removal) of the tangible PERSONAL PROPERTY of another with
the intent to permanently deprive the owner of its possession.)
Ruling:
YES. There is nothing in the nature of gas used for illuminating purposes which renders it
incapable of being feloniously taken and carried away. It is a valuable article of merchandise,
bought and sold like other personal property, susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger
quantity and of being transported from place to place. Likewise water which is confined in pipes
and electricity which is conveyed by wires are subjects of larceny."
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
90 SCRA 189 (1973)
International Human Rights Law
Lessons Applicable: Human Right is superior to property rights
Facts:
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass

demonstration at Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police and that they
informed the Philippine Blooming Mills Inc. (Company) of their proposed demonstration.
The company called a meeting with the officers of PBMEO after learning about the planned
mass. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by the union,explaining
further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no
quarrel or dispute with Management. It was stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike
against the company but in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police.
Company informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union but
emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the
normal operation of the Company. For which reason, the Company warned the PBMEO
representatives that workers who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company,
particularly the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to
report for work shall be dismissed.
The respondent firm claims that there was no need for all its employees to participate in the
demonstration and that they suggested to the Union that only the first and regular shift from 6
A.M. to 2 P.M. should report for work in order that loss or damage to the firm will be averted.
Issue:
Whether or not human right is more supreme than property rights.
Held:
Yes. Human right is more supreme than property right. While the Bill of Rights also protects
property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.8 Because these
freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the
"threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of
sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only "with
narrow specificity." In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of
assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and
laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the
weapons afforded them by the Constitution — the untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human
rights. The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the
absence of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for
the preservation merely of their property rights. Such apprehended loss or damage would not
spell the difference between the life and death of the firm or its owners or its management. The
employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality — abused, harassment and persecuted as they
believed they were by the peace officers of the municipality. As above intimated, the condition
in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig, was a matter that
vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as that of their families. Material loss
can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in
morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. The wounds
fester and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he cries in anguish for
retribution, denial of which is like rubbing salt on bruised tissues.
As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression, of peaceful

assembly and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained

U.S. v. Tambunting, 41 Phil 364 (1921) Concept of Things and Property

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S. v. Tambunting, 41 Phil 364 (1921) Concept of Things and Property

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S. v. Tambunting, 41 Phil 364 (1921) Concept of Things and Property

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S. v.

Tambunting, 41 Phil 364 [1921]

Lessons Applicable: Human Right is superior to property rights

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass

Whether or not human right is more supreme than property rights.

As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression, of peaceful

You might also like