Archive for May, 2016


CASE 2016-0022: SPOUSES VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR. [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, AND CHILDREN, NAMELY, RUEL S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.) AND LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, LAMBERTO BAJAO, HEIR OF SPOUSES LEONCIO* BAJ AO AND ANASTACIA Z. (G.R. NO. 185757, 02 MARCH 2016) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES DE GUZMAN ET AL. VS. C.A. ET AL)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 27, 2008 and the Resolution dated November 19, 2008 rendered by the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 00194-MIN are AFFIRMED, insofar as they dismissed the Complaint for Reconveyance with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages. The Deeds of Absolute Sale are declared void. Respondent Bajao is ORDERED to return the purchase price of P2,400 to petitioners, with legal interest rate at 6% per annum computed from the time of the filing of the Complaint on January 21, 2000 until finality of judgement, and thereafter, at 6% per annum until fully paid.

 

SO ORDERED. “

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

 SCD-2016-0022-SPOUSES DE GUZMAN

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0021:  BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS FELICIANO P. LEGASPI (G.R. NO. 205966, 02 MARCH 2016, PERALTA , J.) (SUBJECT/S: JURISDICTION BASED ON AMOUNT; JURISDICTION OVER BSP; BSP MAY HIRE PRIVATE COUNSEL INSTEAD OF OSG) (BRIEF TITLE: BSP VS. LEGASPI)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 DATED MARCH 13, 2013 OF PETITIONER BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS IS GRANTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION DATED AUGUST 15, 2012 AND RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND THE ORDERS DATED JANUARY 20, 2009 AND APRIL 3, 2009 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, ARE AFFIRMED.

 

LET THIS CASE, THEREFORE, BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT CAN BE RAISED IN AN APPEAL BY CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT?

 

ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW.

 

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS?

 

YES. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

( 1) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATIONS, SURMISES, OR CONJECTURES;

 

(2) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD, OR IMPOSSIBLE;

 

(3) WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

 

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS;

 

 ( 5) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONFLICTING;

 

( 6) WHEN IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

 

(7) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT;

 

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WH!CH THEY ARE BASED;

 

(9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION AS WELL AS IN THE PETITIONER’S MAIN AND REPLY BRIEFS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDEPT;

 

AND (I0) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE PREMISED ON THE SUPPOSED ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 8 UNDER THE PRESENT CASE, THE RTC AND THE CA HAVE DIFFERENT FINDINGS OF FACT, HENCE, THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS COURT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER BSP.

 

RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVE TITLE TO OR POSSESSION OF  REAL PROPERTY WHERE ASSESSED VALUE EXCEEDS P20K. BUT THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT STATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  DOES RTC HAS JURISDICTION?

 

YES BECAUSE ATTACHED TO COMPLAINT WAS A TAX DECLARATION SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY HAS ASSESSED VALUE OF P215,320.00. ANNEXES TO A COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED PART OF, AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH THE COMPLAINT.

 

CA SAID BSP BEING A GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY OSG OR OGCC AND NOT A PRIVATE LAW FIRM. IS CA  CORRECT?

 

NO. UNDER R.A. 7653 OR THE NEW CENTRAL BANK ACT, THE BSP GOVERNOR IS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE BANGKO SENTRAL, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH COUNSEL, INCLUDING PRIVATE COUNSEL, AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE MONETARY BOARD, IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ACTION OR SPECIALIZED LEGAL STUDIES.16 UNDER THE SAME LAW, THE BSP GOVERNOR MAY ALSO DELEGATE HIS POWER TO REPRESENT THE BSP TO OTHER OFFICERS UPON HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0021-BSP VS LEGASPI 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

CASE 2016-0020: BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION, BASIANA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RODNEY 0. BASIANA , IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION AND BASIANA MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -VERSUS HON.  SECRETARY OF THE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL  RESOURCES AND SR METALS INC. (SRMI) (GR. NO. 191705, 07 MARCH 2016, REYES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DENR DECISION ON MINING APPLICATIONS; ADJUDICATIVE POWERS VS ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS; DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION; DOCTRINE OF NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES) (BRIEF TITLE: BASIANA MINING VS. DENR ET AL.)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Amended Decision dated June 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103033 is AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

DENR  APPROVED THE MINING APPLICATION OF  RESPONDENT SRMI AND ENTERED INTO MINING AGREEMENT WITH THEM. PETITIONERS FILED PETITION FOR REVIEW AT CA ASSAILING THE ACT OF DENR. DOES CA HAS JURISIDICTION OVER SUCH CASE?

 

NO. THE ACT OF DENR IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER. THUS, IT CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE CA.

 

WHAT ARE THE DISTINCT POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES?

 

ADMINISTRATIVE, QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, AND QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.

 

WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE POWER?

 

IT IS CONCERNED WITH THE WORK OF APPLYING POLICIES AND ENFORCING ORDERS AS DETERMINED BY PROPER GOVERNMENTAL ORGANS.

 

WHAT IS  QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATORY POWER?

 

IT IS THE POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF FACT TO WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY IS TO APPLY AND TO DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN BY THE LAW ITSELF IN ENFORCING AND ADMINISTERING THE SAME LAW.

 

WHEN DOES A GOVERNMENT AGENCY PERFORMS ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS?

 

WHEN IT RENDERS DECISIONS OR AWARDS THAT DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF ADVERSARIAL PARTIES, WHICH DECISIONS OR AWARDS HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.

 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE POWER OF THE DENR SECRETARY  TO APPROVE AND ENTER INTO AN MPSA?

 

IT IS  ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE AS IT SPRINGS FROM THE MANDATE OF THE DENR UNDER THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, WHICH PROVIDES THAT “[T]HE [DENR] SHALL X X X BE IN CHARGE OF CARRYING OUT THE STATE’S CONSTITUTIONAL MANQATE TO CONTROL AND SUPERVISE THE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZATION, AND CONSERVATION OF THE COUNTRY’S NATURAL RESOURCES.”

 

BUT IN APPROVING AN MPSA, DOES THE DENR SECRETARY NOT ADJUDICATE?

 

NO BECAUSE THE DENR SECRETARY DOES NOT DETERMINE THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ADVERSARIAL PARTIES, WHICH ARE NECESSARY IN ADJUDICATION.

 

NEITHER DOES THE DENR SECRETARY RESOLVE CONFLICTING CLAIMS.

 

RATHER, WHAT IS INVOLVED HERE IS THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A CERTAIN APPLICANT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE LAW, AND IS FINANCIALLY AND TECHNICALLY CAPABLE TO UNDERTAKE THE CONTRACT, AMONG OTHERS.

 

ARE THERE PRECEDENT CASES?

 

YES.

 

AS AN EXAMPLE: IN REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EXPRESS TELECOMMUNICATION CO., LNC.,42 THE COURT STATED THAT THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE (NATURAL RESOURCES) BY LAW SUCH AS GRANTING OF LICENSES, PERMITS, LEASES AND CONTRACTS, OR APPROVING, REJECTING, REINSTATING, OR CANCELING APPLICATIONS, ARE ALL EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE. IT EVEN FURTHER RULED THAT PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS MAY NOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE COURTS.43

 

WHAT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE DENR SECRETARY?

 

HE SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT THE DENR THE CANCELLATION OF THE MINING CONTRACT AND NOT WITH THE COURT ON THE GROUND OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

 

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION?

 

THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION INSTRUCTS THAT IF A CASE IS SUCH THAT ITS DETERMINATION REQUIRES THE EXPERTISE, SPECIALIZED TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, RELIEF MUST FIRST BE OBTAINED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE RESORT TO THE COURTS IS HAD.

 

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES?

 

THE DOCTRINE OF NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES REQUIRES THAT RESORT BE FIRST MADE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES IN THE RESOLUTION OF A CONTROVERSY FALLING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION BEFORE THE CONTROVERSY MAY BE ELEVATED TO A COURT OF JUSTICE FOR REVIEW. A PREMATURE INVOCATION OF A COURT’S INTERVENTION RENDERS THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT CAUSE OF ACTION AND DISMISSIBLE. 

 

TO WHERE SHOULD PETITIONER TURN TO FOR RELIEF?

 

TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THE DENR SECRETARY IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PRESIDENT.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0020-BASIANA MINING

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.