Aguilon, Marie Gene D.

Legal Writing- Set A

June 23, 2013

Paulino J. Garcia vs. The Hon. Executive Secretary and Juan Salcedo, Jr., in his capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Service Development Board 204 SCRA 516 September 13, 1962

Barrera, J.:
Facts: On June 3, 1958, enactment of Republic Act 2067, creating the National Science Development Board to integrate, coordinate, promote and intensify scientific and technological research and development and foster invention and utilize scientific knowledge as an effective instrument for the promotion of national progress, Dr. Paulino J. Garcia, petitioner, was appointed by the President of the Philippines to be the first Chairman of the said development board for a term of six years. On July 15, 1958, Dr. Garcia accepted it and assumed the performance the function of the office. After November 1961 National Election, a new administration took place. And on February 9, 1962, Dr. Garcia didnt mind of what his Assistant Executive Secretary Rodrigo Perezs (respondent) advice to resign to avoid the unpleasant consequences for the allegation of electioneering. Instead, the petitioner submitted his written explanation denying under oath the allegation. But on the next day, the respondent advised the petitioner, in behalf of the President that his explanation was insufficient and he received preventive suspension on February 18, 1962. On the other hand, on February 17, 1962, Juan Salcedo, Jr. (respondent) designated by the President as Acting Chairman of the National Science Development Board. Investigating committee was created through Administrative Order No. 5 dated February 17, 1962. As the investigation went along, petitioner was also charge of dishonesty in office and the investigation committee also considered investigation of administrative charges. And due to some delays caused by unpreparedness of the prosecution, the hearing was immediately postponed because one of the members of the committee (former Justice Ramon San Jose) went abroad on March 19, 1962. On May 5, 1962, petitioner prayed of his reinstated in the service because the 60-day period prescribed in the Civil Service Law (Section 35) for preventive suspension was already expired on April 19, 1962 and that Juan Salcedo, Jr. declared guilty of unlawfully holding an exercising the functions of the office of Chairman of the National Sciences Development Board since the preventive suspension was expired. In contrast, the respondent said that petitioners claim applies only to officers or employees whose administrative cases are to be decided by Commissioner of Civil Service. Thus, Section 35 of Civil Service Act does not apply in his case being appointed by the President. Issue: Whether or not Section 35 of the Civil Service Law applies to the injunction of preventive suspension of an appointed officer by the President? Decision: Yes, Section 35 of the Civil Service Law applies to the injunction of preventive suspension of an appointed officer by the President. Therefore, petitioner Dr. Paulino J. Garcia entitled to immediate reinstatement to his position as Chairman of the National

Science Development Board and respondent Juan Salcedo, Jr. was ordered to immediately vacate and ceased to exercise the functions of the said office. Reason for Decision: The express provision in the Civil Service Law that limits the duration of preventive suspension is significant and timely. It indicates realization by Congress of the evils of indefinite suspension during investigation, where the respondent employee is deprived in the meantime of his means of livelihood, without opportunity to find work elsewhere and he be considered to have abandoned his office. Also, there is nothing in Section 35 which distinguishing between the preventive suspension of an officer appointed by the President and the suspension of subordinate officer or employee undergoing administrative investigation. Lastly, the last sentence of Section 35 so provides, if the ordered by the respondent officer or employee is exonerated, he shall be restored to his position with full pay from the period of suspension, is undeniably applicable to all officers and employees whether suspended by the President, or by chief of office or bureau, or investigated by the Commissioner of Civil Service, or by a presidential investigating committee.

Aguilon, Marie Gene D. Legal Writing- Set A

June 23, 2013

Congressman Enrique T. Garcia, Second District of Bataan vs. The Board of Investments, The Department of Trade and Industry, Bataan Petrochemical Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Corporation 177 SCRA 374 September 7, 1989

Grino-Aquino, J.: Facts: Taiwanese investors in a petrochemical project formed the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC) and applied with Bureau of Investments for registration as a new domestic producer of petrochemicals, specified Bataan as the plant site. The use of naphtha cracker and naphtha as feedstock or fuel for its petrochemical plant was one of the terms and conditions for registration. BPC was with Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) as joint venture. BPC has its Certificate of Registration on February 24, 1989 and was offered by BOI some of these incentives: a. exemption from tax on raw materials b. repatriation of the entire proceeds of liquidation of investments in currency originally made and at the exchange rate obtaining at the time of repatriation c. remittance of earnings on investments d. eliminating 48% ad valorem tax on naphtha if and when would be used as raw material in the said project. However, one of the investors in BPC named A.T. Chong (Chairman of USI Far East Corporation) personally delivered to Trade Secretary Concepcion a letter describing the desire of BPC to amend the original registration certificate of its project by changing the job site from Limay, Bataan to Batangas because of the insurgency and unstable labor situation in Bataan unlike Batangas, with huge liquified petroleum gas (LPG) depot (Pilipinas Shell Corporation). Though the Senate and House spoke for opposing the desire of BPC, still, BPC filed in BOI on April 11, 1989 for a request regarding this amendment of its investment application. It was composed of: a. increasing the investment amount from US$220 to US$320 million b. increasing the production capacity of its naphtha cracker, polyethylene plant and polypropylene plant c. changing the feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG d. transferring the job site from Limay, Bataan to Batangas. Petitioner Congressman Enrique T. Garcia together with other concern leaders and citizens opposed the transfer of the project to Batangas. On May 4, 1989, petitioner address a letter to Trade Secretary requesting for a copy of the amendment, original application and all the attachment to that application. On May 21, 1989, Taiwanese investors declined to give all the requested papers. On May 25, 1989, BOI approved the revision of the registration of BPC. Therefore, on June 26, 1989, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, alleging that the BOI and DTI gravely abused their discretion.

Issue: Whether or not BOI and DTI gravely abused their discretion: a. in not observing due process in approving without hearing, the revision in the registration of the BPCs petrochemical project; b. in refusing to furnish the petitioner with copies of BPCs application for registration and its supporting papers in violation of governments policy of transparency; c. in approving the change in the site of BPCs petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas; d. in approving the change in feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG; e. in showing gross partiality for BPC? Decision: The petition for certiorari was granted: ordered to publish the amended application of registration, granted the petitioner to have access to the original and xerox of the documents and set a hearing regarding the amendment. However, the writ of prohibition or preliminary injunction was denied. Reason for Decision: The alleged violation of due process and alleged extra limitation of power and discretion of the respondents in approving the transfer of project site deprived the petitioners right to have due notice and opportunity to be heard. The publication of application of registration is required by the Code. The petitioners have the right to request for the xerox copies of such documents regarding the application of registration as provided under Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution which states that it is a constitutional right of a citizen to have access to information on matters of public concern. However, the exceptions are those trade secrets and confidential, commercial and financial information and matters affecting national security.

Aguilon, Marie Gene D. Legal Writing- Set A

June 23, 2013

Congressman Enrique T. Garcia, Second District of Bataan vs. The Board of Investments, The Department of Trade and Industry, Luzon Petrochemical Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Corporation 191 SCRA 288 November 9, 1990

Gutierrez, Jr., J: Facts: Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), now Luzon Petrochemical Corporation, formed by a group of Taiwanese investors, was granted by the BOI its have its plant site for the products naphta cracker and naphta to based in Bataan. In February 1989, one year after the BPC began its production in Bataan, the corporation applied to the BOI to have its plant site transferred from Bataan to Batangas. Despite vigorous opposition from petitioner Cong. Enrique Garcia and others, the BOI granted private respondent BPCs application, stating that the investors have the final choice as to where to have their plant site because they are the ones who risk capital for the project. Issue: Whether or not the BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in yielding to the application of the investors without considering the national interest? Decision: Yes, the Court holds and finds that BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in yielding to the application of the investors without considering the national interest. Therefore, the decision of the respondent Board of Investments approving the amendment of the Certificate of Registration of the Luzon Petrochemical Corporation on May 23, 1989 under Resolution No. 193, Series of 1989 is set aside as null and void while the original certificate of registration of BPCs (now LPC) of February 24, 1988 with Bataan as the plant site and naphtha as the feedstock is maintained. Reason for Decision: The Supreme Court found the BOI to have committed grave abuse of discretion in this case, and ordered the original application of the BPC to have its plant site in Bataan and the product naphta as feedstock maintained. The ponente, Justice Gutierrez, Jr., first stated the Courts judicial power to settle actual controversies as provided for by Section 1 of Article VIII in our 1987 Constitution before he wrote the reasons as to how the Court arrived to its conclusion. He mentioned that nothing is shown to justify the BOIs action in letting the investors decide on an issue which, if handled by our own government, could have been very beneficial to the State, as he remembered the word of a great Filipino leader, to wit: .. he would not mind having a government run like hell by Filipinos than one subservient to foreign dictation. Justice Grio Aquino, in her dissenting opinion, argued that the petition was not welltaken because the 1987 Investment Code does not prohibit the registration of a certain project, as well as any decision of the BOI regarding the amended application. She stated that the fact that petitioner disagrees with BOI does not make the BOI wrong in its decision, and that petitioner should have appealed to the President of the country and not to the

Court, as provided for by Section 36 of the 1987 Investment Code. Justice Melencio-Herrera, in another dissenting opinion, stated that the Constitution does not vest in the Court the power to enter the realm of policy considerations, such as in this case.