Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: On April 7, 1978, election for the position of 2.) G.R. Nos. 95203-05 : December 18, 1990
Representative to the Batasang Pambansa were 192 SCRA 363
held throughout the Philippines. The cases at bar
concern only the results of the elections in Region SENATOR ERNESTO MACEDA, Petitioner, vs.
XII which comprises the provinces of Lanao Del Sur, ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD (ERB); MARCELO N.
Lanao Del Norte, Maguindanao, North Cotabato and FERNANDO, ALEJANDRO B. AFURONG; REX V.
Sultan Kudarat, and the cities of Marawi, Iligan and TANTIONGCO; and OSCAR E. ALA, in their collective
Cotabato. official capacities as Chairman and Members of the
Board (ERB), respectively; CATALINO MACARAIG, in
Tomatic Aratuc sought the suspension of the his quadruple official capacities as Executive
canvass then being undertaken by Regional Board of Secretary, Chairman of Philippine National Oil
Canvassers in Cotabato City and in which, the Company; Office of the Energy Affairs, and with
returns in 1,966 out of 4,107voting centers in the MANUEL ESTRELLA, in their respective official
whole region had already been canvassed showing capacities as Chairman and President of the Petron
partial results. Corporation; PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; with CESAR BUENAVENTURA and
A Supervening Panel headed by Commissioner of REY GAMBOA as chairman and President,
Election Hon. Venancio S. Duque had conducted the respectively; CALTEX PHILIPPINES with FRANCIS
hearings of the complaints of the petitioners therein ABLAN, President and Chief Executive Officer; and
of the alleged irregularities in the election records of the Presidents of Philippine Petroleum Dealer's
the mentioned provinces. On July 11, 1978, the Association, Caltex Dealer's Co., Petron Dealer's
Regional Board of Canvassers issued a resolution, Asso., Shell Dealer's Asso. of the Phil., Liquefied
over the objection of the Konsensiya ng Bayan Petroleum Gas Institute of the Phils., any and all
candidates,declaring all the eight Kilusan ng Bagong concerned gasoline and petrol dealers or stations;
Lipunan candidates elected. Appeal was taken by and such other persons, officials, and parties,
the KB candidates to the Comelec. acting for and on their behalf; or in representation
of and/or under their authority, Respondents.
On January 13, 1979, the Comelec issued its
questioned resolution declaring seven KBL G.R. Nos. 95119-21 : December 18, 1990.
candidates and one KB candidate as having obtained 192 SCRA 363
the first eight places, and ordering the Regional
Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning OLIVER O. LOZANO, Petitioner, vs. ENERGY
candidates. The KB candidates interposed the REGULATORY BOARD (ERB), PILIPINAS SHELL
present petition. PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTEX (PHIL.), INC.,
and PETRON CORPORATION, Respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Comelec has
committed grave abuse of discretion,amounting to FACTS: Caltex, Shell Petroleum, and Petron
lack of jurisdiction. Corporation filed separate applications with the
Board for permission to increase the wholesale
HELD: No. As the Superior administrative body posted prices of petroleum products and
having control over boards of canvassers, the meanwhile, for provisional authority to increase
Comelec may review the actuations of the Regional temporarily such wholesale posted prices pending
Board of Canvassers, such as by extending its inquiry further proceedings.
beyond the election records of the voting centers in The Board, in a joint order, granted provisional relief
questions. pursuant to Section 8 of Executive Order No. 172.
The petitioners submit that the Order had been Section 3, paragraph (e) and Section 8 do not negate
issued with grave abuse of discretion, tantamount each other, or otherwise, operate exclusively of the
to lack of jurisdiction. Senator Ernesto Maceda, also other, in that the Board may resort to one but not to
submits that the same was issued without proper both at the same time. Section 3(e) outlines the
notice and hearing in violation of Section 3, jurisdiction of the Board and the grounds for which
paragraph (e), of Executive Order No. 172; that the it may decree a price adjustment, subject to the
Board, in decreeing an increase, had created a new requirements of notice and hearing. Pending that,
source for the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), or however, it may order, under Section 8, an authority
otherwise that it had levied a tax, a power vested in to increase provisionally, without need of a hearing,
the legislature. subject to the final outcome of the proceeding.
The petitioner, Atty. Oliver Lozano, likewise argues In the light of Section 8 quoted above, public
that the Board's Order was issued without notice respondent Board need not even have conducted
and hearing, and hence, without due process of law. formal hearings in these cases prior to issuance of
its Order granting a provisional increase of prices.
The intervenor, the Trade Union of the Philippines The Board, upon its own discretion and on the basis
and Allied Services argues on the other hand, that of documents and evidence submitted by private
the increase cannot be allowed since the respondents, could have issued an order granting
respondents oil companies had not exhausted their provisional relief immediately upon filing by private
existing oil stock which they had bought at old respondents of their respective applications.
prices and that they cannot be allowed to charge
new rates for stock purchased at such lower rates. We do not therefore find the challenged action of
the Board to have been done in violation of the due
ISSUE: Whether or not ERB orders granting process clause. The petitioners may contest
provisional oil increase without prior notice is valid. however, the applications at the hearings proper.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ISCOF is considered a On December 12, 1986, then President Corazon
government instrumentality such that it would Aquino issued EO 85 abolishing the Ministry of
necessarily fall under the prohibition in PD 1818. Human Settlements. All agencies under the its
supervision as well as all its assets, programs and
HELD: Yes, the 1987 Administrative Code defines a projects, were transferred to the Presidential
government instrumentality as follows: Management Staff (PMS).
Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National
Government, not integrated within the department On 18 October 1988, United (Dominican Hills)
framework, vested with special functions or submitted its application before the PMS to acquire
jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all a portion of the Dominican Hills property. In a
corporate powers, administering special funds, and MOA, PMS and United agreed that the latter may
enjoying operational autonomy,usually through a purchase a portion of the said property from HOME
charter. This includes regulatory agencies, chartered INSURANCE GUARANTY CORPORATIO, acting as
institutions, and GOCCs. originator, on a selling price of P75.00 per square
meter.
The same Code describes a chartered institution
thus: Chartered Institutionrefers to any agency Thus, on June 12, 1991, HIGC sold 2.48 hectares of
organized or operating under a special charter, and the property to UNITED. The deed of conditional
vested by law with functions relating to specific sale provided that 10 per cent of the purchase price
constitutional policies or objectives. This includes would be paid upon signing, with the balance to be
state universities and colleges, and the monetary amortized within one year from its date of
authority of the state. It is clear from the above execution. After UNITED made its final payment on
definitions that ISCOF is a chartered institution and January 31, 1992, HIGC executed a Deed of Absolute
is therefore covered by PD 1818. Sale dated July 1, 1992.
HOWEVER, it is apparent that the present Petitioner alleges that sometime in 1993, private
controversy did not arise from the discretionary acts respondents entered the Dominican Hills property
of the administrative body nor does it involve allocated to UNITED and constructed houses
merely technical matters. What is involved here is thereon. Petitioner was able to secure a demolition
non-compliance with the procedural rules on order from the city mayor. Unable to stop the
bidding which required strict observance. PD 1818 razing of their houses, private respondents, under
was not intended to shield from judicial scrutiny the name DOMINICAN HILL BAGUIO RESIDENTS
irregularities committed by administrative agencies HOMELESS ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION, for brevity)
such as the anomalies in the present case. Hence, filed an action for injunction before RTC Baguio City.
the challenged restraining order was not Private respondents were able to obtain a
improperlyissued by the respondent judge and the temporary restraining order but their prayer for a
writ of preliminary injunction should not have been writ of preliminary injunction was later denied.
denied
The ASSOCIATION filed a separate civil case for "to determine whether or not there has been grave
damages, injunction and annulment of the said abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess
MOA. It was later on dismissed upon motion of of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
United. The said Order of dismissal is currently on instrumentality of the Government."
appeal with the Court of Appeals.
While Congress is vested with the power to enact In transferring the NCIP to the DAR as an attached
laws, the President executes the laws. The agency, the President effectively tempered the
President also has the duty of supervising and exercise of presidential authority and
enforcement of laws for the maintenance of considerably recognized that degree of
general peace and public order. Thus, he is independence.
granted administrative power over bureaus and
offices under his control to enable him to In the present case, AMIN glaringly failed to show
discharge his duties effectively. how the reorganization by executive fiat would
hamper the exercise of citizens rights and
The Constitutions express grant of the power of privileges. It rested on the ambiguous conclusion
control in the President justifies an executive that the reorganization jeopardizes economic,
action to carry out reorganization measures social and cultural rights. It intimated, without
under a broad authority of law. expounding, that the agendum behind the
issuances is to weaken the indigenous peoples
It is not disputed that PCUP and NCIP were rights in favor of the mining industry. And it raised
formed as agencies under the Office of the concerns about the possible retrogression in
President. The Agencies under the Office of the DARs performance as the added workload may
President refer to those offices placed under the impede the implementation of the
chairmanship of the President, those under the comprehensive agrarian reform program.
supervision and control of the President, those
under the administrative supervision of the Office AMIN has not shown, however, that by placing
of the President, those attached to the Office for the NCIP as an attached agency of the DAR, the
policy and program coordination, and those that President altered the nature and dynamics of the
are not placed by law or order creating them jurisdiction and adjudicatory functions of the
under any special department. NCIP concerning all claims and disputes involving
rights of indigenous cultural communities and
As thus provided by law, the President may indigenous peoples. Nor has it been shown, nay
transfer any agency under the Office of the alleged, that the reorganization was made in bad
President to any other department or agency, faith.
subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in
As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the
petitioner erroneously equates "preventive
suspension" as a remedial measure with
7.) G.R. No. 97149 March 31, 1992 "suspension" as a penalty for administrative
dereliction. The imposition of preventive suspension
FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR., petitioner, vs. on a government employee charged with an
COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE REINERIO O. administrative offense is subject to the following
REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the provision of the Civil Service Law, P.D. No. 807:
Department of Transportation and
Communications; COMMODORE ROGELIO A. Sec. 41. Preventive Suspension The proper
DAYAN, in his capacity as General Manager of the disciplining authority may preventively suspend any
Philippine Ports Authority; DEPARTMENT OF subordinate officer or employee under his authority
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, pending an investigation, if the charge against such
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BOARD; and JUSTICE officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression
ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, in his capacity as Chairman or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance
of the Administrative Action Board, DOTC, of duty, or if there are reasons to believe that the
respondents. respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant
his removal from the service.
FACTS: Petitioner Fidencio Y. Beja, Sr. is an employee
of the Manila Port authority as a terminal Although the foregoing section does not expressly
supervisor. Two administrative cases was filed provide for a mechanism for an administrative
against him by the PPA General Manager where the investigation of personnel, by vesting the power to
first one was dismissed while the second one remove erring employees on the General Manager,
prospered. Both where for dishonesty, grave with the approval of the PPA Board of Directors, the
misconduct, violation of reasonable office rules and law impliedly grants said officials the power to
regulations, conduct prejudicial to the best interest investigate its personnel below the rank of
of the service and for being notoriously undesirable. Assistant Manager who may be charged with an
The second charge consisted of six (6) different administrative offense. During such investigation,
specifications of administrative offenses including the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may
fraud against the PPA in the total amount of subject the employee concerned to preventive
P218,000.00. suspension. The investigation should be conducted
in accordance with the procedure set out in Sec. 38
Beja was also placed under preventive suspension of P.D. No. 807.
pursuant to Sec. 41 of P.D. No. 807. PPA general
manager indorsed it to the AAB for "appropriate Only after gathering sufficient facts may the PPA
action." Beja filed a petition for Certiorari with General Manager impose the proper penalty in
preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial accordance with law. It is the latter action which
Court of Misamis Oriental. requires the approval of the PPA Board of Directors.
Beja challenges the legality of the preventive It is, therefore, clear that the transmittal of the
suspension and the jurisdiction of the DOTC complaint by the PPA General Manager to the AAB
Secretary and/or the AAB to initiate and hear was premature. The PPA General Manager should
administrative cases against PPA personnel below have first conducted an investigation, made the
the rank of Assistant General Manager. proper recommendation for the imposable penalty
and sought its approval by the PPA Board of
ISSUE: Whether or not the DOTC Secretary and/or Directors. It was discretionary on the part of the
the AAB has the jurisdiction to initiate and hear herein petitioner to elevate the case to the then
administrative cases against PPA personnel below DOTC Secretary Reyes. Only then could the AAB take
the rank of Assistant General Manager. jurisdiction of the case.
ISSUE: WON a voluntary arbiters decision is Assuming arguendo that the voluntary arbitrator or
appealable to the CA and not the SC the panel of voluntary arbitrators may not strictly be
considered as a quasi-judicial agency, board or
HELD: YES. The Court resolved to REFER this case to commission, still both he and the panel are
the Court of Appeals. comprehended within the concept of a quasi-
judicial instrumentality.
The jurisdiction conferred by law on a voluntary
arbitrator or a panel of such arbitrators is quite An instrumentality is anything used as a means or
limited compared to the original jurisdiction of the agency. Thus, the terms governmental agency or
labor arbiter and the appellate jurisdiction of the instrumentality are synonymous in the sense that
NLRC for that matter. The (d)ecision, awards, or either of them is a means by which a government
orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory acts, or by which a certain government act or
unless appealed to the Commission Hence, while function is performed. The word instrumentality,
there is an express mode of appeal from the with respect to a state, contemplates an authority
decision of a labor arbiter, Republic Act No. 6715 is to which the state delegates governmental power
silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of for the performance of a state function. An
a voluntary arbitrator. individual person, like an administrator or executor,
is a judicial instrumentality in the settling of an
Yet, past practice shows that a decision or award of estate, in the same manner that a sub-agent
a voluntary arbitrator is, more often than not, appointed by a bankruptcy court is an
elevated to the SC itself on a petition for certiorari, instrumentality of the court, and a trustee in
in effect equating the voluntary arbitrator with the bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an
NLRC or the CA. In the view of the Court, this is instrumentality of the state.
illogical and imposes an unnecessary burden upon
it. The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state
function pursuant to a governmental power
In Volkschel Labor Union, et al. v. NLRC, et al., 8 on delegated to him under the provisions therefor in
the settled premise that the judgments of courts the Labor Code and he falls, therefore, within the
and awards of quasi-judicial agencies must become contemplation of the term instrumentality in the
final at some definite time, this Court ruled that the aforequoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his
awards of voluntary arbitrators determine the rights functions and powers are provided for in the Labor
of parties; hence, their decisions have the same Code does not place him within the exceptions to
legal effect as judgments of a court. In Oceanic Bic said Sec. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial
Division (FFW), et al. v. Romero, et al., this Court instrumentality as contemplated therein.
located in Iligan City, and reserving that land for
It will be noted that, although the Employees the use and immediate occupancy of NSC.
Compensation Commission is also provided for in
the Labor Code, Circular No. 1-91, which is the Certain portions of the public land however
forerunner of the present Revised Administrative were occupied by a non-operational chemical
Circular No. 1-95, laid down the procedure for the fertilizer plant and related facilities owned by
appealability of its decisions to the CA under the private respondent Maria Cristina Fertilizer
foregoing rationalization, and this was later adopted Corporation ("MCFC")
by Republic Act No. 7902 in amending Sec. 9 of B.P.
129. A fortiori, the decision or award of the NSC was directed to "negotiate with the owners
voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should of MCFC, for and on behalf of the
likewise be appealable to the CA, in line with the Government, for the compensation of MCFC's
procedure outlined in Revised Administrative present occupancy rights on the subject land.
Circular No. 1-95, just like those of the quasi-judicial
agencies, boards and commissions enumerated
LOI No. 1277 directed that should NSC and
therein.
private respondent MCFC fail to reach an
agreement within a period of sixty (60) days,
In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that under
petitioner ISA was to exercise its power of
Section 22 of Republic Act No. 876, also known as
eminent domain under P.D. No. 272 and to
the Arbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special
initiate expropriation proceedings in respect of
proceeding of which the court specified in the
occupancy rights of private respondent MCFC
contract or submission, or if none be specified, the
relating to the subject public land as well as the
RTC for the province or city in which one of the
plant itself and related facilities and to cede the
parties resides or is doing business, or in which the
same to the NSC.
arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction.
In effect, this equates the award or decision of the Negotiations between NSC and private
voluntary arbitrator with that of the RTC. respondent MCFC did fail.
Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that
award or decision, the CA must be deemed to have Accordingly, on 18 August 1983, petitioner ISA
concurrent jurisdiction with the SC. As a matter of commenced eminent domain proceedings
policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the against private respondent
Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper
disposition. The case proceeded to trial. While the trial was
ongoing, however, the statutory existence of
petitioner ISA expired on 11 August 1988.
9.) IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY, petitioner, MCFCs contention: no valid judgment could
vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA CRISTINA be rendered against ISA which had ceased to
FERTILIZER CORPORATION, respondents. be a juridical person.
Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. The Authority From the foregoing premises, it follows that
shall have the following powers and functions: the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be
(j) to initiate expropriation of land required for substituted in the expropriation proceedings as
basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale party-plaintiff in lieu of ISA, the statutory term of
and/or lease to the companies involved if it is ISA having expired.
shown that such use of the State's power is
necessary to implement the construction of capacity Put a little differently, the expiration of ISA's
which is needed for the attainment of the objectives statutory term did not by itself require or justify
of the Authority; the dismissal of the eminent domain proceedings.
It should also be noted that the enabling While the power of eminent domain is, in
statute of ISA expressly authorized it to enter into principle, vested primarily in the legislative
certain kinds of contracts "for and in behalf of the department of the government, we believe and so
Government" in the following terms: hold that no new legislative act is necessary should
(i) to negotiate, and when necessary, to enter the Republic decide, upon being substituted for ISA,
into contracts for and in behalf of the in fact to continue to prosecute the expropriation
government, for the bulk purchase of materials, proceedings. For the legislative authority, a long
supplies or services for any sectors in the industry, time ago, enacted a continuing or standing
and to maintain inventories of such materials in delegation of authority to the President of the
order to insure a continuous and adequate supply Philippines to exercise, or cause the exercise of, the
thereof and thereby reduce operating costs of power of eminent domain on behalf of the
such sector; Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
UPs funds, being government funds, are not Indeed, an appropriation by Congress was
subject to garnishment required before the judgment that rendered the UP
liable for moral and actual damages (including
Irrefragably, the UP is a government attorneys fees) would be satisfied considering that
instrumentality, performing the States such monetary liabilities were not covered by the
constitutional mandate of promoting quality and "appropriations earmarked for the said project."
accessible education. As a government The Constitution strictly mandated that "(n)o money
instrumentality, the UP administers special funds shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
sourced from the fees and income enumerated pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
under Act No. 1870 and Section 1 of Executive
Order No. 714, and from the yearly appropriations,
to achieve the purposes laid down by Section 2 of
Act 1870, as expanded in Republic Act No. 9500. All 13.) LOCKHEED DETECTIVE AND WATCHMAN
the funds going into the possession of the UP, AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, vs. UNIVERSITY OF THE
including any interest accruing from the deposit of PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
such funds in any banking institution, constitute a
"special trust fund," the disbursement of which Facts:
should always be aligned with the UPs mission and Petitioner Lockheed Detective and Watchman
purpose, and should always be subject to auditing Agency, Inc. (Lockheed) entered into a contract
by the COA. for security services with respondent University
of the Philippines (UP).
Presidential Decree No. 1445 defines a "trust
fund" as a fund that officially comes in the In 1998, several security guards assigned to UP
possession of an agency of the government or of a filed separate complaints against Lockheed and
public officer as trustee, agent or administrator, or UP for payment of underpaid wages, 25%
that is received for the fulfillment of some overtime pay, premium pay for rest days and
obligation. A trust fund may be utilized only for the special holidays, holiday pay, service incentive
"specific purpose for which the trust was created leave pay, night shift differentials, 13th month
or the funds received." pay, refund of cash bond, refund of deductions
for the Mutual Benefits Aids System (MBAS),
The funds of the UP are government funds unpaid wages from December 16-31, 1998, and
that are public in character. They include the attorneys fees.
income accruing from the use of real property
ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the Lower Court rulings:
attainment of its institutional objectives. Hence, the
funds subject of this action could not be validly Labor Arbiter: Lockheed Detective and
made the subject of the RTCs writ of execution or Watchman Agency, Inc. and UP as job
garnishment. contractor and principal, respectively, are
hereby declared to be solidarily liable to
Other Discussions: Suability of the State did not complainants.
necessarily mean its liability
NLRC: The respondent University of the
"Suability depends on the consent of the state to be Philippines is still solidarily liable with Lockheed in
sued, liability on the applicable law and the the payment of the rest of the claims covering the
established facts. The circumstance that a state is period of their service contract.
suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on As the parties did not appeal the NLRC
the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does decision, the same became final and executory on
not first consent to be sued. Liability is not October 26, 2002. A writ of execution was then
conceded by the mere fact that the state has issued but later quashed by the Labor Arbiter on
allowed itself to be sued. When the state does November 23, 2003 on motion of UP due to
waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the disputes regarding the amount of the award. Later,
plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the however, said order quashing the writ was reversed
defendant is liable. by the NLRC.
UP moved to reconsider the NLRC resolution. procedure (the filing of a claim with the COA), UP is
On December 28, 2004, the NLRC upheld its entitled to reimbursement of the garnished funds
resolution but with modification that the plus interest of 6% per annum, to be computed
satisfaction of the judgment award in favor of from the time of judicial demand to be reckoned
Lockheed will be only against the funds of UP from the time UP filed a petition for certiorari
which are not identified as public funds. before the CA which occurred right after the
CA (motion for recon by UP ruling) withdrawal of the garnished funds from PNB.
It held that without departing from its findings
that the funds covered in the savings account
sought to be garnished do not fall within the
classification of public funds, it reconsiders the
dismissal of the petition in light of the ruling in the 14.) DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO,
case of National Electrification Administration v. and SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, vs. RICHARD
Morales which mandates that all money claims J. GORDON, Respondent.
against the government must first be filed with the
Commission on Audit (COA). Hence, this petition. Facts:
Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M.
Issue: Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari (petitioners)
Whether or not the UP funds can validly be filed with this Court a Petition to Declare
garnished Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat
in the Senate. Petitioners are officers of the
Held: Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross
This Court finds that the CA correctly applied Chapter while respondent is Chairman of the
the NEA case. Like NEA, UP is a juridical personality Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of
separate and distinct from the government and has Governors.
the capacity to sue and be sued. Thus, also like NEA,
it cannot evade execution, and its funds may be Petitioners allege that by accepting the
subject to garnishment or levy. However, before chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors,
execution may be had, a claim for payment of the respondent has ceased to be a member of the
judgment award must first be filed with the COA. Senate as provided in Section 13, Article VI of
the Constitution, which reads:
Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as
amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445, it is the SEC. 13. No Senator or Member of the House
COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, of Representatives may hold any other office or
audit and settle "all debts and claims of any sort" employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
due from or owing the Government or any of its agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, government-owned or controlled corporations or
including government-owned or controlled their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting
corporations and their subsidiaries. his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office
With respect to money claims arising from the which may have been created or the emoluments
implementation of Republic Act No. 6758, their thereof increased during the term for which he was
allowance or disallowance is for COA to decide, elected.
subject only to the remedy of appeal by petition for
certiorari to this Court. On the other hand, respondent insists that the
PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled
We cannot subscribe to Lockheeds argument corporation and that the prohibition under Section
that NEA is not similarly situated with UP because 13, Article VI of the Constitution does not apply in
the COAs jurisdiction over the latter is only on post- the present case since volunteer service to the
audit basis. A reading of the pertinent PNRC is neither an office nor an employment.
Commonwealth Act provision clearly shows that it
does not make any distinction as to which of the Issue:
government subdivisions, agencies and Whether or not the office of the PNRC Chairman is a
instrumentalities, including government-owned or government office or an office in a government-
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries whose owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the
debts should be filed before the COA. prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the
Constitution.
As to the fait accompli argument of Lockheed,
contrary to its claim that there is nothing that can Ruling: NO.
be done since the funds of UP had already been The PNRC is not government-owned but
garnished, since the garnishment was erroneously privately owned. The vast majority of the
carried out and did not go through the proper thousands of PNRC members are private individuals,
including students. Under the PNRC Charter, those
who contribute to the annual fund campaign of the Facts:
PNRC are entitled to membership in the PNRC for The Public Estates Authority (PEA) is a
one year. Thus, any one between 6 and 65 years of government corporation created by virtue of
age can be a PNRC member for one year upon Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1084 to provide a
contributing P35, P100, P300, P500 or P1,000 for coordinated, economical and efficient
the year. Even foreigners, whether residents or not, reclamation of lands, and the administration
can be members of the PNRC. and operation of lands belonging to, managed
and/or operated by, the government with the
Thus, the PNRC is a privately owned, privately object of maximizing their utilization and
funded, and privately run charitable organization. hastening their development consistent with
The PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled public interest.
corporation.
PEA was designated as the agency primarily
Petitioners anchor their petition on the 1999 responsible for integrating, directing and
case of Camporedondo v. NLRC, which ruled that coordinating all reclamation projects for and on
the PNRC is a government-owned or controlled behalf of the National Government.
corporation. In ruling that the PNRC is a
government-owned or controlled corporation, the From PEA its name was changed to PRA.
simple test used was whether the corporation was
created by its own special charter for the exercise of By virtue of its mandate, PRA reclaimed several
a public function or by incorporation under the portions of the foreshore and offshore areas of
general corporation law. Since the PNRC was Manila Bay, including those located in
created under a special charter, the Court then Paraaque City.
ruled that it is a government corporation. However,
the Camporedondo ruling failed to consider the Paraaque City Treasurer Liberato M. Carabeo
definition of a government-owned or controlled (Carabeo) issued Warrants of Levy on PRAs
corporation as provided under Section 2(13) of the reclaimed properties (Central Business Park and
Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code Barangay San Dionisio) located in Paraaque
of 1987. Hence, it is now deemed inapplicable. City based on the assessment for delinquent
real property taxes made by then Paraaque
Just like the Local Water Districts, the PNRC City Assessor.
was created through a special charter. However,
unlike the Local Water Districts, the elements of Issue:
government ownership and control are clearly Whether or not petitioner Philippine Reclamation
lacking in the PNRC. Thus, although the PNRC is Authority (PRA) is a government-owned and
created by a special charter, it cannot be considered controlled corporation (GOCC), a taxable entity, and,
a government-owned or controlled corporation in therefore, not exempt from payment of real
the absence of the essential elements of ownership property taxes
and control by the government.
Ruling: NO
In sum, we hold that the office of the PNRC 1st point:
Chairman is not a government office or an office in a This Court is convinced that PRA is not a GOCC
government-owned or controlled corporation for either under Section 2(3) of the Introductory
purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI Provisions of the Administrative Code or under
of the 1987 Constitution. Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The
facts, the evidence on record and jurisprudence on
Other Rulings: the issue support the position that PRA was not
PNRC Charter is void insofar as it creates organized either as a stock or a non-stock
the PNRC as a private corporation, the corporation. Neither was it created by Congress to
PNRC should incorporate under the operate commercially and compete in the private
Corporation Code and register with the market. Instead, PRA is a government
Securities and Exchange Commission if it instrumentality vested with corporate powers and
wants to be a private corporation. performing an essential public service pursuant to
Petitioners have no standing to file this Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the
petition Administrative Code. Being an incorporated
government instrumentality, it is exempt from
payment of real property tax.
15.) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by
the PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY (PRA), 2nd point:
Petitioner, vs. CITY OF PARANAQUE, Respondent.
Section 234 of the Local Government Code Here, the subject lands are reclaimed lands,
provides that real property owned by the Republic specifically portions of the foreshore and offshore
of the Philippines (the Republic) is exempt from real areas of Manila Bay. As such, these lands remain
property tax unless the beneficial use thereof has public lands and form part of the public domain. In
been granted to a taxable person. In this case, there the case of Chavez v. Public Estates Authority and
is no proof that PRA granted the beneficial use of AMARI Coastal Development Corporation, the Court
the subject reclaimed lands to a taxable entity. held that foreshore and submerged areas irrefutably
There is no showing on record either that PRA belonged to the public domain and were inalienable
leased the subject reclaimed properties to a private unless reclaimed, classified as alienable lands open
taxable entity. to disposition and further declared no longer
needed for public service. The fact that alienable
This exemption should be read in relation to lands of the public domain were transferred to the
Section 133(o) of the same Code, which prohibits PEA (now PRA) and issued land patents or
local governments from imposing "taxes, fees or certificates of title in PEAs name did not
charges of any kind on the National Government, its automatically make such lands private. This Court
agencies and instrumentalities x x x." The also held therein that reclaimed lands retained their
Administrative Code allows real property owned by inherent potential as areas for public use or public
the Republic to be titled in the name of agencies or service.
instrumentalities of the national government. Such
real properties remain owned by the Republic and As the central implementing agency tasked to
continue to be exempt from real estate tax. undertake reclamation projects nationwide, with
authority to sell reclaimed lands, PEA took the place
Indeed, the Republic grants the beneficial use of DENR as the government agency charged with
of its real property to an agency or instrumentality leasing or selling reclaimed lands of the public
of the national government. This happens when the domain. The reclaimed lands being leased or sold by
title of the real property is transferred to an agency PEA are not private lands, in the same manner that
or instrumentality even as the Republic remains the DENR, when it disposes of other alienable lands,
owner of the real property. Such arrangement does does not dispose of private lands but alienable
not result in the loss of the tax exemption, unless lands of the public domain. Only when qualified
"the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for private parties acquire these lands will the lands
consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." become private lands. In the hands of the
government agency tasked and authorized to
3rd point: dispose of alienable of disposable lands of the
The Court agrees with PRA that the subject public domain, these lands are still public, not
reclaimed lands are still part of the public domain, private lands.
owned by the State and, therefore, exempt from
payment of real estate taxes.
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
reads in part, as follows: 18.) BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all COMMISSION, FORTUNATO ESGUERRA,
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or ROBERTO MALABORBOR, ESTANISLAO
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural MISA, VICENTE EVANGELISTA, and
resources are owned by the State. With the MARCELINO GARCIA
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. X x x Facts:
Similarly, Article 420 of the Civil Code enumerates
properties belonging to the State: Private respondents Fortunato C. Esquerra,
Art. 420. The following things are property of public Roberto O. Malaborbor, Estanislao M. Misa,
dominion: Vicente N. Evangelista and Marcelino P.
(1) Those intended for public use, such as Garcia, had all been rank-and-file
roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and employees of petitioner Boy Scouts of
bridges constructed by the State, banks, the Philippines ("BSP").
shores, roadsteads, and others of similar They received an order from the BSP
character; General that they were to be transferred
(2) Those which belong to the State, from the BSP Camp in Makiling to the BSP
without being for public use, and are Land Grant in Asuncion, Davao del Norte.
They opposed the said transfer and later on
intended for some public service or for the
filed a complaint for illegal transfer was filed
development of the national wealth.
with the then Ministry of Labor and
[Emphases supplied]
Employment.
Petitioner BSP imposed a five-day those to which the BSP dedicates itself by
suspension on the five (5) private statutory mandate have in fact, been accorded
respondents but later they were eventually constitutional recognition. Article II of the 1987
terminated. Constitution includes in the "Declaration of
They amended their Complaint and included Principles and State Policies," the following:
therein Illegal Dismissal.
Labor Arbiter (dismissed the complaint) Sec. 13. The State recognizes the vital
NLRC (reversed and said that private role of the youth in nation-building and
respondents had been illegally dismissed by shall promote and protect their physical,
petitioner BSP) moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social
well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth
Issues: patriotism and nationalism, and
encourage their involvement in public and
WON BSP is a government-owned or civic affairs.
controlled corporation
WON the BSP is embraced within the At the same time, BSP's sanctions do not
Civil Service as that term is defined in relate to the governance of any part of territory of
Article IX (B) (2) (1) of the 1987 the Philippines; BSP is not a public corporation in
Constitution the same sense that municipal corporations or
local governments are public corporations. BSP's
Ruling: functions can not also be described as proprietary
functions in the same sense that the functions or
The central issue is whether or not the BSP is activities of government-owned or controlled
embraced within the Civil Service as that term is corporations like the National Development
defined in Article IX (B) (2) (1) of the 1987 Company or the National Steel Corporation can be
Constitution which reads as follows: described as proprietary or "business-like" in
character. Nevertheless, the public character of
BSP's functions and activities must be conceded,
The Civil Service embraces all branches,
for they pertain to the educational, civic and social
subdivisions, instrumentality mentalities
development of the youth which constitutes a
and agencies of the Government,
very substantial and important part of the nation.
including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters.
The second aspect that the Court must
take into account relates to the governance
The answer to the central issue will
of the BSP. The composition of the National
determine whether or not private respondent
Executive Board of the BSP includes, as noted
NLRC had jurisdiction to render the Decision and
from Section 5 of its charter quoted earlier,
Resolution which are here sought to be nullified.
includes seven (7) Secretaries of Executive
Departments. The seven (7) Secretaries (now six
The responses of the parties, on the one [6] in view of the abolition of the Department of
hand, and of the Office of the Solicitor General Youth and Sports and merger thereof into the
and the Office of the Government Corporate Department of Education, Culture and Sports) by
Counsel, upon the other hand, in compliance with themselves do not constitute a majority of the
the Resolution of this Court of 9 August 1989, members of the National Executive Board. We
present a noteworthy uniformity. Petitioner BSP must note at the same time that the
and private respondents submit substantially the appointments of members of the National
same view "that the BSP is a purely private Executive Board, except only the appointments of
organization". In contrast, the Solicitor General the Regional Chairman and Scouts of Senior age
and the Government Corporate Counsel take from the various Scout Regions, are subject to
much the same position, that is, that the BSP is a ratification and confirmation by the Chief Scout,
"public corporation' or a "quasi-public who is the President of the Philippines. Vacancies
corporation" and, as well, a "government to the Board are filled by a majority vote of the
controlled corporation." remaining members thereof, but again subject to
ratification and confirmation by the Chief
The Court considers that the following need Scout.18 We must assume that such confirmation
to be considered in arriving at the appropriate or ratification involves the exercise of choice or
legal characterization of the BSP for purposes of discretion on the part of ratifying or confirming
determining whether its officials and staff power. It does appears therefore that there is
members are embraced in the Civil Service. substantial governmental (i.e., Presidential)
Firstly, BSP's functions as set out in its participation or intervention in the choice of the
statutory charter do have a public aspect. majority of the members of the National Executive
BSP's functions do relate to the fostering of the Board of the BSP.
public virtues of citizenship and patriotism and the
general improvement of the moral spirit and fiber
of our youth. The social value of activities like
The third aspect relates to the character the monetary authority of the
of the assets and funds of the BSP. The State. (Emphasis supplied)
original assets of the BSP were acquired by
purchase or gift or other equitable arrangement We believe that the BSP is appropriately
with the Boy Scouts of America, of which the BSP regarded as "a government instrumentality"
was part before the establishment of the under the 1987 Administrative Code.
Commonwealth of the Philippines. The BSP
charter, however, does not indicate that such It thus appears that the BSP may be
assets were public or statal in character or had regarded as both a "government controlled
originated from the Government or the State. We corporation with an original charter" and as an
note only that BSP funds have not apparently "instrumentality" of the Government within the
heretofore been regarded as public funds by the meaning of Article IX (B) (2) (1) of the
Commission on Audit, considering that such funds Constitution. It follows that the employees of
have not been audited by the Commission. petitioner BSP are embraced within the Civil
Service and are accordingly governed by the Civil
While the BSP may be seen to be a Service Law and Regulations.
mixed type of entity, combining aspects of
both public and private entities, we believe In view of the foregoing, we hold that both
that considering the character of its the Labor Arbiter and public respondent NLRC had
purposes and its functions, the statutory no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by private
designation of the BSP as "a public respondents in NLRC Case No. 1637-84; neither
corporation" and the substantial labor agency had before it any matter which could
participation of the Government in the validly have been passed upon by it in the
selection of members of the National exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction.
Executive Board of the BSP, the BSP, as
presently constituted under its charter, is a
government-controlled corporation within
19.) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
the meaning of Article IX. (B) (2) (1) of the
REVENUE vs GENERAL FOODS (PHILS.),
Constitution.
INC.,