Admin

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 28 | Comments: 0 | Views: 242
of 13
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Facts:
Before the Court are consolidated petitions, taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of
which assail the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. Pork Barrel refers to
an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or
primarily to bring money to a representative's district. In the Philippines, the “pork barrel” has
been commonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of Members of the Legislature,
although, its usage would evolve in reference to certain funds of the President such as
the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund. The Malampaya Funds was a special
fund created under PD 910 issued by then President Ferdinand E.Marcos for the development of
indigenous energy resources vital to economic growth. The Presidential Social Fund is sourced from
the share of the government in the aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR through which the
President provides direct assistance to priority programs and projects not funded under the regular
budget. In 1996, an anonymous source later identified as Former Marikina City Romeo Candazo
revealed that huge sums of government money went into the pockets of legislators as
kickbacks. In 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF for being
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for lack of any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse
of PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous Members of
Congress, the petition was dismissed. In July 2013, NBI began its probe into allegations that
“the government has been defrauded of some P10Billion over the past 10 years by a syndicate
using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and various government agencies for scores of
ghost projects.” The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six whistle-blowers who
declared that JLN Corporation (stands for Janet Lim Napoles) had facilitated theswindling of
billions of pesos from the public coffers for “ghost projects” using no fewer than 20 dummynongovernment organizations for an entire decade.
In August 2013, the Commission on Audit released report revealing substantial irregularities in
the disbursement and utilization of PDAF by the Congressmen during the Arroyo
administration. As for the 'Presidential Pork Barrel', whistle-blowers alleged that "at least P900
Million from royalties in the operation of the Malampaya gas project off Palawan province
intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO. Spurred in large part by the
findings contained in the CoA Report and the Napoles controversy, several petitions were lodged before
the Court similarly seeking that the Pork Barrel System be declared unconstitutional.

Ripeness for Adjudication
4. Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness,
meaning that the questions raised for constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. A
question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it. It is a prerequisite that something had then been accomplished or
performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must
allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged
action
5. The cases at present have not become moot. A case becomes moot when there is no more
actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the
merits.
6. The Court observes that respondents„ proposed line-item budgeting scheme would not
terminate the controversy since said reform is geared towards the 2014 budget, and not the
2013 PDAF Article which, being a distinct subject matter, remains legally effective and existing.

7. Neither will the President„s declaration that he had already abolished the PDAF render the
issues on PDAF moot precisely because the Executive branch of government has
no constitutional authority to nullify or annul its legal existence. By constitutional design, the
annulment or nullification of a law may be done either by Congress, through the passage of a repealing
law, or by the Court, through a declaration of unconstitutionality
8. Moreover, the Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if: (a) there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; (b) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved;(c) when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench ,the bar, and the public; (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
All the four exceptions are applicable in this case.

Res Judicata (does not apply)
14. Res judicata means “a matter adjudged”. The focal point of res judicata is the judgment.
The res judicata principle states that a judgment on the merits in a previous case rendered by
a court of competent jurisdiction would bind a subsequent case if, between the first and second
actions, there exists an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.15. The res
judicata principle cannot apply in this case. The required identity is not present since Philconsa
and LAMP, respectively, involved constitutional challenges against the 1994 CDF Article
and2004 PDAF Article, whereas the cases at bar call for a broader constitutional scrutiny of the
entire Pork Barrel System. Also, the ruling in LAMP is essentially a dismissal based on
a procedural technicality –and, thus, hardly a judgment on the merits.

G.R. Nos. 172532 and 172544-45, November 20, 2013 PRIMO C. MIRO, vs. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS, CATALINA ALINGASA and PORFERIO I.
MENDOZA FACTS: Petitioner Deputy Ombudsman found respondent LTO officials liable for grave misconduct. The latter allegedly sold documents for registration of vehicles
which were supposed to be free, as found by the Graft investigation and prosecution officer Carrillo on the affidavits of eight complainant vehicle traders. The private
respondents later appealed the finding of the Ombudsman and their resulting dismissal to the CA which granted their petition, ruling that the complainants did not have personal
knowledge of the alleged demand for money by the accused. It also said that the finding of the ombudsman was not supported by documentary evidence. Petitioner argues that
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact when it dismissed that which was made by the petitioner
Ombudsman HELD: Petition is denied. The doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact is not absolute. The CA may resolve factual issues, review and reevaluate the evidence on record and reverse these findings if not supported by substantial evidence. In this case, no substantial evidence exists to show that the respondents
indeed collected payments from the complainants, as the affidavits were never identified by the complainants. The allegations were likewise hearsay and uncorroborated by
evidence, other that the NBI Progress Report which was also based on the same affidavits.

Smart Communications IncvsAldecoaet. Al
GR NO. 166330
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
Facts:
0

Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the telecommunications
business.

0

It entered into a contract of leasewith FlorentinoSebastian whereinAllarilla
Construction, immediately constructed and installed a cellular base station.

0

Inside the cellular base station is a communications tower, rising as high as150
feet, with antennas and transmitters; as well as a power house open on three
sides containing a 25KVA diesel power generator. Around and close to the
cellular base station are houses, hospitals, clinics, and establishments, including
the properties of respondents

0

Respondents filed a Complaint against petitioner for abatement of nuisance and
injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
injunction alleging that:
0

Susceptible to collapse

0

Emits noxious and deleterious fumes

0

Radiates ultra high frequency (UHF) radio wave emissions

0

Violates the law by constructing the tower without the necessary public
hearing, permit of the barangay, as well as that of the municipality, the
Environmental Compliance Certificate of the [Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR)],construction permit, and other
requirements of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)

0

Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint.

0

The respondents averred that among others that it belies the petitioner‟s claim
that it sought the consent of the majority of the respondents surrounding the
tower site as there where nly a handful of residents signed the document
prepared by petitioner and the contents of which were misrepresented by a
Sangguniang Bayan Member in the person of Nick Sebastian who is an
interested party being the owner of the land where the tower is constructed.

0

The petitioner filed as well a Motion for Summary Judgment which was, later on,
granted by RTC.

0

The resident filed a memorandum stating that the test was conducted on
November 14 and 15, 2000 and the result shows that the petitioner‟s power
generator failed the noise emission test, day and night time.

0

RTC ruled in favor of Smart dismissing the complaint as the allegations therein
are purely speculative and hence no basis in fact to warrant further proceedings
of this case.

0

Appeal to CA which declared the cellular base station of petitioner a nuisance
that endangered the health and safety of the residents of Barangay Vira, Roxas,
Isabela because: (1) the locational clearance granted to petitioner was a nullity
due to the lack of approval by majority of the actual residents of the barangay
and a barangay resolution endorsing the construction of the cellular base station;
and (2) the sound emission of the generator at the cellular base station exceeded
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) standards.

Issue:
0

WON CA erred when it encroached upon an executive function of determining
the validity of a locational clearance when it declared, contrary to the
administrative findings of the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board
("HLURB"), that the locational clearance of Petitioner was void.

Held
0

Based on the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and its corollary
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, it was premature for the Court of Appeals to take
cognizance of and rule upon the issue of the validity or nullity of petitioner‟s
locational clearance for its cellular base station.

0

The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he
should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The
issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be
summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such
administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due
deliberation.

0

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal
prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the

question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact
0

In this case, there is no showing that respondents availed themselves of the
afore-mentioned administrative remedies prior to instituting the case before the
RTC. While there are accepted exceptions to the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, 30 respondents
never asserted nor argued any of them. Thus, there is no cogent reason for the
Court to apply the exceptions instead of the general rule to this case.

G.R. No. 164789

August 27, 2009

CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, INC., Petitioner, vs.
SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO and PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO, Respondents.
Facts:
The Petitioner entered into a Contract to Sell covering a subdivision lot with respondent spouses, the
former paid the down payment for the subject property and religiously paid the installments, then after,
petitioner‟s administration pastor discovered that the lot is part of the property already under litigation and
part of the five-hectare retention awarded to the original land owner. Upon such discovery, petitioner filed
a complaint in the RTC praying for the rescission of the Contract and damages. Respondents filed a
motion to dismiss asserting that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. Citing PD No. 95712 and PD
No. 1344, the respondents claimed that the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB since
it involved the sale of a subdivision lot. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, respondents countered by filing a
petition for certiorari with the CA. CA found merit in the respondents‟ position and set the RTC order aside
the CA ruled that the HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.
Contending that the CA committed reversible error, the Petitioner now comes before the Supreme Court
to overturn the CA decision and resolution.
Issue: Whether the regular court or the HLURB – has exclusive jurisdiction over Petitioner‟s action for
rescission and damages?
Ruling:
It is consistently ruled that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts
between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer or those aimed at compelling the subdivision
developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations to make the subdivision a better place to
live in.
The provisions of PD 957 were intended to encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and
condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing for an appropriate government agency, the HLURB,
to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation of provisions and the enforcement of contractual
rights with respect to said category of real estate may take recourse. The business of developing
subdivisions and corporations being imbued with public interest and welfare, any question arising from
the exercise of that prerogative should be brought to the HLURB which has the technical know-how on
the matter. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts and
determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a uniquely
judicial function, exercisable only by the regular courts.

.

PD No. 957, enacted on July 12, 1976, was intended to closely supervise and regulate the real estate
subdivision and condominium businesses in order to curb the growing number of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and operators
Section 3 of PD No. 957 granted the National Housing Authority (NHA) the "exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate the real estate trade and business."
(Pursuant to Executive Order No. 90 dated December 17, 1986, the HSRC was renamed as the HLURB.)
SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition
to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman

C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v. Hibionada:
The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the Civil
Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There are hundreds of administrative bodies now
performing this function by virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function,
as it is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power entrusted to them of regulating
certain activities falling under their particular expertise
The need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience
and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially factual matters,
subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well-nigh indispensable. Thus,
in 1984, the Court noted that „between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, the
unmistakable trend has been to refer it to the former‟
The nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the material allegations of the
complaint and the law governing at the time the action was commenced. The jurisdiction of the tribunal
over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by law, not by the parties‟ consent or by
their waiver in favor of a court that would otherwise have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
nature of an action

INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., CAPTAIN SIGFREDO E. MONTERROYO AND/OR INTERORIENT
NAVIGATION LIMITED vs. MORADAS
G.R. No. 178564, January 15, 2014
 FACTS
Respondent was employed as wiper for the vessel of MV Commander by petitioner INC
Shipmanagement, Inc. for its principal, petitioner Interorient Navigation, Ltd, for a period of 10
months.On October 13, 2000, the respondent, while disposing of the garbage in the incinerator
room of the vessel, claimed that certain chemicals splashed all over his body because of an
explosion. He was sent to the Burns Unit of the Prince of Wales Hospital wherein he was found
to have suffered deep burns.Eventually, upon his own demand, he was sent home. On October
21, 2000, he was admitted to the St. Luke’s Medical Centre wherein he was diagnosed to have
sustained thermal burns.Respondent demanded for the payment of his full disability benefits
claiming that the burns rendered him permanently incapable of working again as a
seaman.Petitioners denied respondent’s claims, contending that his injury was self-inflicted, and
hence, not compensable. They averred that he was led to commit such act after he was caught
last October 10, 2000 stealing the vessel’s supplies where respondent was informed that he was
to be dismissed.Respondent denied burning himself, contending that such act was contrary to
human nature and logic and there was no showing that he is mentally unfit.Based on the facts
presented, the Labor Arbiter held that respondent’s injury was self-inflicted and that no
incinerator explosion occurred that would have caused the latter’s injury.On appeal, NLRC
sustained the findings of the LA and held that while some of the statements of the vessel’s crew
were not notarized, the corroborating testimonial evidence must be taken as a whole. It also
pointed out that respondent’s mental or physical fitness was not at issue since he was
motivated to inflict injury to himself for reasons related to the impending discharge.Dissatisfied
with the decision, respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA
rendered the assailed decision holding that grave abuse of discretion tainted the NLRC ruling.It
found no logical and causal connection between the act of pilferage as well as the respondent’s
act of inflicting injury to himself. Moreover, it pointed out that no evidence was presented to
show that respondent had no business near the engine room.
 ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in finding that NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it denied
respondent’s claim for disability benefits?
 RULING
YES. NLRC had cogent legal bases to conclude that petitioners have successfully discharged
the burden of proving by substantial evidence that respondent’s injury was directly attributable to
him. The reasons therefor are as follows:

First, records bear out circumstances which all lead to the reasonable conclusion that
respondent was responsible for the burning incident.
Second, respondent’s version that the burning was caused by an accident is hardly
purported by the evidence on record.
Third, petitioner’s theory that respondent’s burns were self-inflicted gains credence
through the existence of motive.
The petitioners, having established through substantial evidence that the respondent’s injury
was self-inflicted and, hence, not compensable, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed
against the NLRC.
It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with
grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court finds these qualities in the case at bar
and thus, holds that the CA erred in ruling that grave abuse of discretion exists.

G.R. No. 170623
A. Z. ARNAIZ REALTY, INC. vs
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM et al
July 9, 2010

FACTS


Petitioner A. Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc. filed a Petition for Exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) coverage before the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), Region V over three (3) parcels of land



Petitioner argued that (1) the said parcels of land had been devoted to cattle-ranching purposes
since time immemorial; (2) said lands are not tenanted; and (3) said lands have more than 18%
slopes.



DAR Regional Director issued an Order denying the petition for Exclusion and also ordered that
the acquisition of the properties under the coverage of CARP be pursued subject to the
retention right of the landowner accordant with existing laws, rules, regulations and DAR
policies



Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied



Petitioner then appealed the Order to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.



Petitioner also filed two separate motions for ocular inspections.



The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Order dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.



Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied.



In dismissing the petition, the CA ratiocinated that the findings of fact of the OP, the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, and the DAR Regional Director, Region V were supported by substantial
evidence.



Hence, the petition to the SC raising the following arguments:
1.

petitioner was not accorded the requisite due process.

2.

the luz farms ruling, as well as the delia Sutton case, should be applied in the instant case.

3. the subject lands are not suitable for agriculture and they are not tenanted aside from the
fact that they contain slopes of more than 18%.
ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS
HELD : PETITION IS BEREFT OF MERIT


Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always, and in all situations, require a trialtype proceeding.



Litigants may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memoranda or
oral arguments



There is NO violationof due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely
on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties.



Even if no formal hearing took place, it is not sufficient ground for petitioner to claim that due
process was not afforded it.



Petitioner was given all the opportunity to prove and establish its claim , in fact, petitioner filed
motions for reconsideration in every unfavorable outcome of its actions in all tiers of the
administrative and judicial process



Essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek for a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of

Notes on judicial review:


The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency, or its officers, and all
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court.



The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof,
in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules
of Court.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close