Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vs.
The Civil Service Commission and The Philippine National Bank, Respondent.
G.R. No. 104226
FACTS:
On September 20, 1972, petitioner Conchita Romualdez-Yap started working for the
Philippine National Bank. After several promotions, she was finally appointed as the
Senior Vice President of the Fund Transfer Department in 1983. Starting April 1,
1986 up to February 20, 1987, petitioner filed several applications for leave of
absence which were duly approved. While on leave, Executive Order No. 80
(Revised Charter of PNB) was approved, which restructured the company and
separated her from service. Aggrieved, petitioner inquired at the Civil Service
Commission with the latter only affirming her separation. Petitioner then filed a
motion for reconsideration against the CSC decision alleging that her rights have
been prejudiced considering that the decision was not fully supported by evidence
and that her separation was approved on February 16, 1986 which was prior to
PNBs reorganization. She contends that this was done in bad faith. Still, her
allegations were not given credit by the CSC in its resolution. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Was the petitioners termination valid? Was it done in bad faith?
HELD:
Yes, the petitioners termination was valid and it was not done in bad faith. The
company, being under a financial crisis, had enough cause to pursue reorganization
as an exercise of its functions to preserve the entity as a whole, which when it
recovers, is consequently an action done in good faith. A reorganization, whether in
a government bureau performing constituent functions or in a government-owned
or controlled corporation performing ministrant functions, must be done in good
faith as what has been observed in the above case. Thus, the SC has affirmed the
CSC resolution and dismissed the petition.
FACTS:
On June 3, 1883, an earthquake devastated the Philippines. In response, the
inhabitants of the Spanish Dominions amassed a contribution of $400,000.00 which
they then gave to Philippine Treasury as an aid to the victims. From the total sum,
an amount of $80,000.00 remained unused, which was then deposited to the bank
of Monte de Piedad; however, the said amount was never distributed among the
victims. Then came Republic Act No. 2109 on January 30, 1912 empowering the
Philippine Government to claim the unused amount for its people. The defendantappellant questioned this and contended that the suit could only be instituted by
the intended beneficiaries or by their heirs. After the trial, the case was decided in
favor of the Philippine Government.
ISSUE:
May the Philippine Government file the suit against the bank of Monte de Piedad?
HELD:
Yes. The Philippine Government, according to the Doctrine of Parens Patriae, has
the right to represent its people. As Parens Patria, a government of a state has the
right to enforce all charities of a public nature, by virtue of its general
superintending authority over public interests. Being a guardian of the rights of its
people, it is entitled to claim the amount in question in behalf of the legitimate
claimants. Thus, the decision of the lower court has been affirmed by the SC and
the appeal rejected.
FACTS:
On April 30, 1964, Bienvenida de la Isla, a widow of Leoncio Lorenzo, sold to
spouses Martin Nery and Leoncia De Leon four hectares of land (3/4 of her whole
property).
This was then questioned by Bienvenidas children, all surnamed
Lorenzo, who were minors at that time claiming that they were never informed of
this transaction. As children of the deceased husband of Bienvenida, they claimed
that they were entitled to the disputed land. Also, the heirs of Silvestra Ferrer, who
originally owned of the whole parcel of the land, intervened. In the lower court, a
decision was made recognizing the rights of the Lorenzo children. Aggrieved,
spouses Nery and De Leon brought the case to the CA. A decision was made
rendering the transaction between Bienvenida and the spouses as valid, without
any prejudice to the rights of the Lorenzo children. Reiterating the lower courts
decision in upholding the Civil Code, the Lorenzo children filed the case to the SC,
hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Considering the transaction to be valid, are the Lorenzo children still entitled to their
claims?
HELD:
Yes, but only to the portion decided upon by the SC, which is a half of the 3/4 of the
parcel of land in dispute. The Lorenzo children, being minors, were prejudiced by
the transaction. Thus, with the intervention of the SC as the arm of the Government
of the State in its capacity to provide guardianship according to the Doctrine of
Parens Patriae, it favored the Lorenzo children. The petition was then accepted with
modification and affirmation of the decision of the lower court.
Upon the death of Francisco Reyes, a litigation for the partition of his properties was
initiated between Senfrosa Bales and Bernardita Macariola who claimed to be
Francisco Reyes legitimate daughter. The case was presided by Judge Elias
Asuncion, with the court deciding in favor of Macariola. Due to the lack of appeal,
the decision became final. Then, a project of partition was submitted to judge
Asuncion which he approved. Subsequently, one of the properties subject to
partition was acquired by Judge Asuncion through purchase. Macariola filed suit
against Judge Asuncion with acts of unethical implication and acts unbecoming a
judge. She alleged that, among several things, Judge Asuncion violated art. 1491 of
the new civil code and article 14 of the code of commerce.
ISSUE:
Would the provisions of article 14 of the code of commerce still apply in this case?
HELD:
No. This is because Art 14 of the code of commerce which prohibits judges from
engaging in commerce is deemed abrogated automatically upon transfer of
sovereignty from Spain to America, and finally to the Philippines, being political in
nature. Also, with regard to the validity of his purchase in relation to art 1491, the
land in dispute was no longer subject to pending litigation due to the given final
decision. Wherefore, the respondent judge was reminded to be more discreet in his
private and business activities.
February 2, 2001
FACTS:
By virtue of PD No. 625, Leyte Sab-a Basin Development Authority (LSBDA) was
created in order to provide a planned development and balanced growth of the Saba basin the province of Leyte, was empowered to acquire real property in line with
its business. On June 14, 1980, it purchased a lot located in Leyte from one Calixtra
Yap. In 1989, LSBDA assigned all its rights over the purchased real property to the
National Development Company (NDC), the latter leasing the property to the
Philippine Associate Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR), Philippine
Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (PHILPHOS), and Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.,
Inc. (LEPANTO) all the above-named companies and person as the respondents.
However on November 19, 1988, the Estate of Joaquin Ortega represented by
judicial administrator Felipe Seville, herein the petitioners, claimed ownership over
the said real property. He then filed a complaint with the RTC for the recovery of the
real property, rentals, and damages. The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the
petitioners. The respondents brought the case to the CA, which rendered a decision
in their favor, citing the Regalian Doctrine. Hence, the present case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regalian Doctrine has been validly applied in the present case.
HELD:
Yes, it was validly applied as an exercise of the states sovereignty. Under the
Regalian Doctrine, all the lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is
the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not otherwise
appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State. The petitioners had no certificate of title over the disputed property.
Although they claim that their title was based on acquisitive prescription, they failed
to present incontrovertible proof that the land had previously been classified as
alienable. No conclusive proof of private ownership was presented. Wherefore, the
petition was then denied, affirming the decision of the CA.
FACTS:
On October 13, 1967, Socorro Orcullo filed her application for a parcel of land in
Sibonga, Cebu. Subsequently, one of Socorros heirs sold the subject lot to SAAD
Agro-Industries, Inc. (petitioner). Sometime in 1995, the Solicitor General filed a
complaint alleging that the issuance of the subject lot was irregular and erroneous,
following the discovery that the lot was allegedly part of the timberland and forest
reserve of Sibonga, Cebu. The RTC dismissed the complaint absent the evidence to
the allegations. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTCs judgment. It held that the
disputed lot is not subject to private ownership unless first classified as agricultural
lands, deeming Socorros patent application invalid. The petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration which was denied, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Was the Regalian Doctrine applicable in the case at bar?
HELD:
No. Being well-enshrined in our Constitution, the Regalian doctrine has always been
recognized and upheld by court. Nevertheless, in applying this doctrine, we must
not lose sight of the fact that in every claim or right by the Government against one
of its citizens, fairness and due process must be observed. The respondents in this
case failed to show that the subject lot was a part of a timberland or forest reserve
it averted to. Thus, the allegations by the respondents were rejected. Wherefore,
the petition was granted reversing and setting aside the CA decision and resolution.