to build a railway transit line along EDSA. No bidding was made but certain corporations were invited to prequalify. The only corporation to qualify was the EDSA LRT Consortium which was obviously formed for this particular undertaking. An agreement was then made between the government, through the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), and EDSA LRT Consortium. The agreement was based on the Build-Operate-Transfer scheme provided for by law (RA 6957, amended by RA 7718). Under the agreement, EDSA LRT Consortium shall build the facilities, i.e., railways, and shall supply the train cabs. Every phase that is completed shall be turned over to the DOTC and the latter shall pay rent for the same for 25 years. By the end of 25 years, it was projected that the government shall have fully paid EDSA LRT Consortium. Thereafter, EDSA LRT Consortium shall sell the facilities to the government for $1.00. However, Senators Francisco Tatad, John Osmea, and Rodolfo Biazon opposed the implementation of said agreement as they averred that EDSA LRT Consortium is a foreign corporation as it was organized under Hongkong laws; that as such, it cannot own a public utility such as the EDSA railway transit because this falls under the nationalized areas of activities. The petition was filed against Jesus Garcia, Jr. in his capacity as DOTC Secretary.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition shall
prosper. HELD: No. The Supreme Court made a clarification. The SC ruled that EDSA LRT Consortium, under the agreement, does not and will not become the owner of a public utility hence, the question of its nationality is misplaced. It is true that a foreign corporation cannot own a public utility but in this case what EDSA LRT Consortium will be owning are the facilities that it will be building for the EDSA railway project. There is no prohibition against a foreign corporation to own facilities used for a public utility. Further, it cannot be said that EDSA LRT Consortium will be the one operating the public utility for it will be DOTC that will operate the railway transit. DOTC will be the one exacting fees from the people for the use of the railway and from the proceeds, it shall be paying the rent due to EDSA LRT Consortium. All that EDSA LRT Consortium has to do is to build the facilities and receive rent from the use thereof by the government for 25 years it will not operate the railway transit. Although EDSA LRT Consortium is a corporation formed for the purpose of building a public utility it does not automatically mean that it is operating a public utility. The moment for determining the requisite Filipino nationality is when the entity applies for a franchise, certificate or any other form of authorization for that purpose.
Equitable Leasing Corporation vs
Suyom
vehicle has been fully paid by Edwin
Lim.
Facts:On July 17, 1994, a Fuso Road
Tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed into the house cum store of Myrna Tamayo in Tondo, Manila. A portion of the house was destroyed which caused death and injury. Tutor was charged with and later convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries.
Lim completed the payments to cover
the full price of the tractor. Thus, a Deed of Sale over the tractor was executed by petitioner in favor of Ecatine represented by Edwin Lim. However, the Deed was not registered with the LTO.
Upon verification with the Land
Transportation Office, it was known that the registered owner of the tractor was Equitable Leasing Corporation/leased to Edwin Lim. On April 15, 1995, respondents filed against Raul Tutor, Ecatine Corporation (Ecatine) and Equitable Leasing Corporation (Equitable) a Complaint for damages. The petitioner alleged that the vehicle had already been sold to Ecatine and that the former was no longer in possession and control thereof at the time of the incident. It also claimed that Tutor was an employee, not of Equitable, but of Ecatine. Issue:Whether or not the petitioner was liable for damages based on quasi delict for the negligent acts. Held:The Lease Agreement between petitioner and Edwin Lim stipulated that it is the intention of the parties to enter into a finance lease agreement. Ownership of the subject tractor was to be registered in the name of petitioner, until the value of the
Petitioner is liable for the deaths and the
injuries complained of, because it was the registered owner of the tractor at the time of the accident.The Court has consistently ruled that, regardless of sales made of a motor vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons are concerned. Since Equitable remained the registered owner of the tractor, it could not escape primary liability for the deaths and the injuries arising from the negligence of the driver. Ma. Luisa Benedicto v. IAC, Greenhills Wood Industries Co., Inc. FACTS: Greenhills Wood Industries bound itself to sell and deliver to Blue Star Mahogany, Inc.100,000 board feet of sawn lumber with the understanding that an initial delivery would bemade. Greenhills resident manager in Maddela, Dominador Cruz, contracted Virgilio Licuden, thedriver of a cargo truck, to transport its sawn lumber to the consignee Blue Star inValenzuela, Bulacan; this cargo truck was registered in the name of Ma. Luisa Benedicto,the proprietor of Macoven Trucking, a
business enterprise engaged in hauling
freight the Manager of Blue Star called up Greenhills president informing him that the sawnlumber on board the subject cargo truck had not yet arrived in Valenzuela, Bulacan;because of the delay in delivery Blue Star was constrained to look for other suppliers Greenhills filed criminal case against dri ver Licuden for estafa; and a civil case f orrecovery of the value of the lost sawn lumber plus damages against Benedicto Benedicto denied liability as she was a complete stranger to the contract of carriage, thesubject truck having been earlier sold by her to Benjamin Tee; but the truck had remainedregistered in her name because Tee have not yet fully paid the amount of the truck; bethat as it may, Tee had been operating the said truck in Central Luzon from that andLicuden was Tees employee and not hers ISSUE: WON Benedicto, being the registered owner of the carrier, should be held liable forthe value of the undelivered or lost sawn lumber HELD: Yes. The registered owner liable for consequences flowing from the operations of thecarrier, even though the specific vehicle involved may already have been transferred toanother person. This doctrine rests up on the principle that in dealing with vehic lesregistered under the Public Service Law, the public has the
right to assume that theregistered owner
is the actual or lawful owner thereof It would be very difficult and oftenimpossible as a practical matter, for members of the general public to enforce the rights of action that they may have for injuries inflicted by the vehicles being negligently operated if they should be required to prove who the actual owner is. Greenhills is not required to gobeyond the vehicles certificate of registration to ascertain the owner of the carrier. BA FINANCE CORPORATION CAGR 94566, July 1992
v.
FACTS:On December 17, 1980, Renato
Gaytano, doing business under the name Gebbs International, applied for and was granted a loan with respondent Traders Royal Banking the amount of P60,000.00. As security for the payment of said loan, the Gaytano spouses exec uted a deed of surety ship whereby they agreed to pay jointly and severallyto respondent bank the amount of the loan includinginterests, penalty and other bank charges. In a letter dated December 5, 1980 addressed to respondent bank, Philip Wong as credit administrator of BAFinance Corporation for and in behalf of the latter undertook to guarantee the loan of the Gaytano spouses. Partial payments were made on the loan leaving an unpaid balance in the amount of P85, 807.25. Since the Gaytano pouses refused to pay their obligation, respondent bank filed with the trial court complaint for sum of money
againstthe Gaytano spouses and petitio
ner corporation asalternative defendant. The Gaytano spouses did not present evidence fortheir defense. Petitioner Corporation, on the other hand, raised the defense of lack of authority of its creditadministrator to bind the corporation. On December 12, 1988, the trial court rendered decision in favor of plaintiff and against defendants/Gaytano spouses, ordering the latter to jointly and severally pay theplaintiff.Not satisfied with the decision , respondent bankappealed with the Court of Appeals. On March 13, 1990, respondent appellate court rendered judgment modifying the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition. ISSUE:Whether the letter of guaranty is ultra vires and thusinvalid and/or unenforceable. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the assaileddecision of the respondent appellate court dated March 13,1990 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one isrendered dismissing the complaint for sum of money againstBA Finance Corporation. SO ORDERED Angeles Jardin, et al. vs. NLRC and PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC. FACTS: Petitioners were the drivers of a taxi owned by Philjama International Inc. under the boundary system. Petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect
their rights and interests against illegal
deduction of private respondent for the washing of taxi units. Upon the knowledge of the private respondent about the plan of the petitioners, He refused to let them drive the taxi when they reported to work. The petitioners bring the complaint before the court against private respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not employeremployee relationship exists. HELD:No relationship exists, Under the boundary system the driver takes out his unit and pays the owner/operator a fee commonly called "boundary" for the use of unit. The four fold test must apply in determining the employer-employee relationship, these are: 1) the selection and engagement of the employee; 2) the payment of wages; 3) the power of dismissal; and 4) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. The Supreme Court stresses that the fourth requisites are the most important that the others may be even disregarded Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists if the "employer" has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Otherwise, no such relation exists. In the case at bar, it is clear that they
are free to choose whatever manner
they conduct their trade and beyond the physical control of the owner/operator; they themselves determine the amount of revenue they would want to earn in driving a taxi. But the SC decided that it is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of
employer-employee. Hence, petitioners
are undoubtedly employees of private respondent because as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of trade of their employer, thus the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement and other benefits loss.