PVTA vs CIR

G.R. No. L-32052

65 SCRA 416

July 25, 1975

FACTS: Private respondents filed a petition seeking relief for their alleged
overtime services (in excess of their 8 regular hours a day) and the failure to pay
for said compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444.

Section 1: The legal working day for any person employed by another shall
not be of more than eight (8) hours daily.

Petitioner denies allegations for lack of a cause of action and jurisdiction.

Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari on grounds that the corporation is

exercising governmental functions and is therefore exempt from CA No. 444 which
was denied and dismissed by RTC and CA. Motion for Reconsideration were also
DENIED.

ISSUE: Whether or not PVTA discharges governmental and not proprietary

functions and is exempt from CA No. 444.

HELD: It is an inherent state function which makes government required to

support its people and promote their general welfare. This case explains and
portrays the expanded role of government necessitated by the increased
responsibility to provide for the general welfare.

The Court held that the distinction and between constituent and ministrant
functions, which the Chief Justice points out, is already irrelevant considering the
needs of the present time. He says that "The growing complexities of modern
society have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of
government obsolete." The distinction between constituent and ministrant
functions is now considered obsolete.

The Court affirms that the Petition as well as the subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration beDENIED.

ROMUALDEZ-YAP v. CSC
225 SCRA 285

FACTS:
Petitoner Conchita Romualdez-Yap started working with the Philippine National
Bank (PNB) on September 20, 1972 and after several promotions, was
appointed in 1983 as a Senior Vice President assigned to the Fund Transfer
Department. The case at bar is a special civil action for certiorari assailing
Res. No. 92-201 of the respondent which upheld the petitioners separation
from PNB in light of EO 80 or the Revised Charter of PNB. Petitioner
contends that there is an existence of bad faith in its reorganization and that
there is an erroneous application of the one year prescriptive period for quo
warranto proceedings in her case.

ISSUE:
Is the reorganization of PNB, a government-owned or controlled corporation
performing ministrant functions, valid?

HELD:
Ministrant functions are those undertaken by way of advancing the general
interests of society and are merely optional. Commercial or universal banking
is, ideally, not a governmental but a private sector endeavour, an optional
function of the government. There are functions of the government which it
may exercise to promote merely the welfare, progress, and prosperity of the
people. Thus, reorganization of such corporations like PNB are valid so long as
they are done in good faith as prescribed in the Dario v. Mison doctrine.
Accordingly, the reorganization of PNB is found to be done in good faith by
the Court.

Government of the Philippine Islands vs Monte de Piedad

G.R. No. 9959

35 PH 728, 751-753

December 13, 1916

FACTS: On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake in the Philippines took place.

The Spanish dominions provided $400,000 aid as received by the National
Treasury as relief of the victims of the earthquake. The government used the
money as such but $80,000 was left untouched and was thus invested to Monte de
Piedad bank, which was in turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the same
amount.

In June 1983, the Department of Finance called upon the same bank to return the
$80,000 deposited from before. The Monte de Piedad declined to comply with this
order on the ground that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and not
the Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement because the
Philippine government is not the affected party. On account of various petitions of
the persons, the Philippine Islands brought a suit against Monte de Piedad for a
recovery of the $80,000 together with interest, for the benefit of those persons
and their heirs. Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is authorized to file a
reimbursement of the money of the people deposited in respondent bank.

HELD: The Court held that the Philippine government is competent to file a
complaint/reimbursement against respondent bank in accordance to the Doctrine
of Parens Patriae. The government is the sole protector of the rights of the
people thus, it holds an inherent supreme power to enforce laws which promote
public interest. The government has the right to "take back" the money intended
fro people. The government has the right to enforce all charities of public nature,
by virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where
no other person is entrusted with it.

Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was thereby GRANTED. The Court
ordered that respondent bank return the amount to the rightful heirs with
interest in gold or coin in Philippine peso.

Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh 75 Phil 113 Nov. 16, 1945
Facts of the case:

Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese occupation, with
the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the
American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on the
case, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had
invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the
Philippines and, without an enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the
defunct Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government under the Japanese).
Issues:

1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese
occupation were valid and remained valid even after the American occupation;

2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthur issued in which
he declared that all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in
the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without
legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control
invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the courts;

3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthurs proclamation,

those courts could continue hearing the cases pending before them.

Ruling

1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil laws
continue even during occupation unless repealed.
2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be
applied on judicial proceedings because such a construction would violate the law of
nations.
3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case pending
before it.

Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to final judgment the proceedings
in civil case no. 3012.