Feliciano vs.

COA, January 14, 2004

-The COA denied petitioner Ranulfo C. Felicianos request for COA to cease all audit
services, and to stop charging auditing fees, to Leyte Metropolitan Water District
(LMWD).
-The COA also denied petitioners request for COA to refund all auditing fees
previously paid by LMWD.
-Petitioner contends that COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction by auditing LMWD and requiring it to pay auditing fees.
-The issue is whether a Local Water District (LWD) created under PD 198, as
amended, is a government-owned or controlled corporation subject to the audit
jurisdiction of COA or a private corporation which is outside of COAs audit
jurisdiction
-Petition lacks merit. The Constitution under Sec. 2(1), Article IX-D and existing
laws mandate COA to audit all government agencies, including government-owned and
controlled corporations with original charters. An LWD is a GOCC with an original
charter.

Manila International Airport Authrity vs. CA, 20 July 2006

-MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for prohibition
and injunction, seeking to restrain the City of Paraaque from imposing real estate
tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the airport land and
buildings. The CA, however, dismissed the Petition for having been filed out of
time.
-The Court heard the parties in Oral Argument on March 29, 2005, on the
threshold issue of whether the petitioners airport land and buildings were exempt
from real estate tax under existing laws.
-In a Decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio,[2] the Court held that the
real properties of MIAA were exempt from the real estate tax imposed by local
governments.

Magsaysay-Labrador vs. CA, GR No. 68168 December 19, 1989

-On 9 February 1979, Adelaida Rodriguez-Magsaysay brought before the then Court of
First Instance of Olongapo an action against Artemio Panganiban for the annulment
of the Deed of Assignment executed by the late Senator in favor of SUBIC.
-The issue is whether the Magsaysay sister, allegedly stockholders of SUBIC, are
interested parties in a case where corporate properties are in dispute.
-Viewed in the light of Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
Magsaysay sisters have no legal interest in the subject matter in litigation so as
to entitle them to intervene in the proceedings.

Sulo ng Bayan vs. Araneta, GR L-31061, 17 August 1976

-Plaintiff-appellant Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. filed an action against defendant-
appellees to recover the ownership and possession of a large tract of land in
Bulacan, registered under Torrens System.
-The issues are whether or not Plaintiff Corporation (non-stock) may institute an
action in behalf of its individual members for the recovery of certain parcels of
land allegedly owned by said members and whether the complaint filed by the
corporation in behalf of its members may be treated as class suit
-The ruling is denied. It is a doctrine well-established and obtains both at law
and in equity that a corporation is a distinct legal entity to be considered as
separate and apart from the individual stockholders or members who compose it, and
is not affected by the personal rights, obligations and transactions of its
stockholders or members.

Bataan Shipyard vs. PCGG, G.R. No. 75885, May 27, 1987
-Challenged in this special civil action of certiorari and prohibition by a private
corporation known as the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co. is the sequestration,
takeover, and other orders issued, and acts done, in accordance with said executive
orders by the Presidential Commission on Good Government and/or its Commissioners
and agents, affecting said corporation.
-The issue is whether or not the sequestration order dated April 14, 1986, and all
other orders subsequently issued and acts done on the basis thereof, inclusive of
the takeover order of July 14, 1986 and the termination of the services of the
BASECO executives are valid.
-The decision is yes. The petition cannot succeed. The writs of certiorari and
prohibition prayed for will not be issued. Other evidence submitted to the Court by
the Solicitor General proves that President Marcos not only exercised control over
BASECO, but also that he actually owns well nigh one hundred percent of its
outstanding stock.