G.R. No.

1051 May 19, 1903

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,

vs.
FRED L. DORR, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

F. G. Waite for appellants.

Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The defendants were charged of scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and theInsular
Government of the Philippine Islands because of an editorial it published in the issue of ManilaFreedom. The
defendants were convicted for said offense basing upon Section 8 of Act. No. 292 of theCommission. Defendants
then appealed for reversal of judgment made by the lower courts.

ISSUE (ADMINISTRATION)
Is the editorial published by the defendants directed towards the Government of the United States and theInsular
Government of the Philippine Islands?

RULING/HELD
No, the editorial was not directed towards the government itself but towards the aggregate of individualswho were
administering the government at that time.We understand, in modern political science, . . . by the term
government, that institution or aggregate ofinstitutions by which an independent society makes and carries
out those rules of action which areunnecessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed
upon the people forming thatsociety by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them.
Government is the aggregate ofauthorities which rule a society. By "administration, again, we understand in
modern times, and especiallyin more or less free countries, the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the
reins of governmentare for the time being (the chief ministers or heads of departments)." (Bouvier, Law
Dictionary, 891.) Butthe writer adds that the terms "government" and "administration" are not always used in
their strictness,and that "government" is often used for "administration."In this case, the editorial published
by defendants where directed towards the personnel of theCommission whom they described as
"notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personalcharacter". This as being ruled out by the
Supreme Court was an attack not to the government system butto the aggregate of individuals by whom the
government is being administered.NOTESThe final judgment of the convictions of the defendants was reversed by
the Supreme Court acquitting thedefendants with costs against the officials.

G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998

BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner,

vs.
RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS,
CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL
COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.

Facts: Administrative Order No 308, otherwise known as Adoption of a National Computerized Identification
Reference System was issued by President Fidel Ramos on 12 December 1996. Senator Blas Ople filed a petition to
invalidate the said order for violating the right to privacy. He contends that the order must be invalidated on two
constitutional grounds, (1) that it is a usurpation of the power to legislate; and (2) that it intrudes the citizens right
to privacy.

Issue: Whether or not Senator Ople has standing to maintain suit?

Decision: Petitioner, Senator Ople is a distinguished member of the Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of
the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issue of Administrative Order No 308 is a usurpation
of legislative power. Oples concern that the Executive branch not to trespass on the lawmaking domain of
Congress is understandable. The blurring demarcation line between the power of legislature to make laws and the
power of executive to execute laws will disturb their delicate balance and cannot be allowed.

G.R. No. 135945 March 7, 2001

THE UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL, INC., represented by its President RODRIGO S. MACARIO, SR.,
petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, represented by its Commissioner, RUFINO V.
MIJARES; MARIO PADILAN, PONCIANO BASILAN, HIPOLITO ESLAVA, WILLIAM LUMPISA, PACITO MOISES,
DIONISIO ANAS, NOLI DANGLA, NAPOLEON BALESTEROS, ELSIE MOISES, SEBIO LACWASAN, BEN FLORES,
DOMINGO CANUTAB, MARCELINO GABRIANO, TINA TARNATE, ANDREW ABRAZADO, DANNY LEDDA,
FERNANDO DAYAO, JONATHAN DE LA PENA, JERRY PASSION, PETER AGUINSOD, and LOLITA DURAN,
respondents.

FACTS: Dominican Hills, formerly registered as Diplomat Hills in Baguio City, was mortgaged to the United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB). It was eventually foreclosed and acquired later on by the said bank as the highest bidder.
On 11 April 1983, through its President Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., the subject property was donated to the Republic of
the Philippines. The deed of donation stipulated that Dominican Hills would be utilized for the "priority programs,
projects, activities in human settlements and economic development and governmental purposes" of the Ministry
of Human Settlements.

On December 12, 1986, then President Corazon Aquino issued EO 85 abolishing the Ministry of Human
Settlements. All agencies under the its supervision as well as all its assets, programs and projects, were transferred
to the Presidential Management Staff (PMS).

On 18 October 1988, United (Dominican Hills) submitted its application before the PMS to acquire a portion of the
Dominican Hills property. In a MOA, PMS and United agreed that the latter may purchase a portion of the said
property from HOME INSURANCE GUARANTY CORPORATIO, acting as originator, on a selling price of P75.00 per
square meter.

Thus, on June 12, 1991, HIGC sold 2.48 hectares of the property to UNITED. The deed of conditional sale provided
that ten (10) per cent of the purchase price would be paid upon signing, with the balance to be amortized within
one year from its date of execution. After UNITED made its final payment on January 31, 1992, HIGC executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 1, 1992.

Petitioner alleges that sometime in 1993, private respondents entered the Dominican Hills property allocated to
UNITED and constructed houses thereon. Petitioner was able to secure a demolition order from the city mayor.
Unable to stop the razing of their houses, private respondents, under the name DOMINICAN HILL BAGUIO
RESIDENTS HOMELESS ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION, for brevity) filed an action for injunction before RTC Baguio
City. Private respondents were able to obtain a temporary restraining order but their prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction was later denied.

The ASSOCIATION filed a separate civil case for damages, injunction and annulment of the said MOA. It was later
on dismissed upon motion of United. The said Order of dismissal is currently on appeal with the Court of Appeals.
The demolition order was subsequently implemented by the Office of the City Mayor and the City Engineer's Office
of Baguio City. However, petitioner avers that private respondents returned and reconstructed the demolished
structures.

To forestall the re-implementation of the demolition order, private respondents filed a petition for annulment of
contracts with prayer for a temporary restraining order before the Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems (COSLAP) against petitioner, HIGC, PMS, the City Engineer's Office, the City Mayor, as well as the Register
of Deeds of Baguio City. On the very same day, public respondent COSLAP issued the contested order requiring the
parties to maintain the status quo. Without filing a motion for reconsideration from the aforesaid status quo order,
petitioner filed the instant petition questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP.

ISSUE: W/O COSLAP is empowered to hear and try a petition for annulment of contracts with prayer for a TRO and
to issue a status quo order and conduct a hearing thereof?

RULING: COSLAP is not justified in assuming jurisdiction over the controversy. It discharges quasi-judicial
functions:

"Quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc. of public administrative officers or
bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."

However, it does not depart from its basic nature as an administrative agency, albeit one that exercises quasi-
judicial functions. Still, administrative agencies are not considered courts; they are neither part of the judicial
system nor are they deemed judicial tribunals. The doctrine of separation of powers observed in our system of
government reposes the three (3) great powers into its three (3) branches the legislative, the executive, and the
judiciary each department being co-equal and coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere. Accordingly, the
executive department may not, by its own fiat, impose the judgment of one of its own agencies, upon the judiciary.
Indeed, under the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is empowered "to determine whether or not there
has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government."

G.R. No. 178030 December 15, 2010

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PFDA), Petitioner,

vs.
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LUCENA CITY,
CITY OF LUCENA, LUCENA CITY ASSESSOR AND LUCENA CITY TREASURER, Respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner owned the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex which was on reclaimed land and consisted of a breakwater,
landing quay, water and fuel oil supply system, refrigeration building, market hall and a municipal shed. Petitioner
then leased portions of the IFPC to private firms engaged in the fishing business. Iloilo city then assessed the entire
IFPC for Real Property Tax.

ISSUE:
Is the entirety of the IFPC subject to the Real Property Tax?

HELD:
NO. The Real Property Tax liability of the IFPC is only on portions leased out to private entities. PFDA is not a GOCC
but is actually an instrumentality of the national government exempt from Real Property Tax. Given this, it will
only be subject to Real Property Tax on the portions of the IFPC which is leased to private entities. It is not a GOCC
since a GOCC must satisfy two requirements: (i) capital stock divided into shares and (ii) authorized to distribute
dividends/profits. PFDA does have capital stock but the same is not divided into shares and neither is it a non-
stock corporation because it does not have members.

(Note: This was the same decision reached in MIAA vs. Paranaque (July 20, 2006) and again in MIAA vs. Pasay
(April 2, 2009) where the property in question was the airport premises. In those cases, the Court additionally
provided that other examples of government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers or what are know as
government corporate entities are Philippine Ports Authority, BSP and University of the Philippines.)

G.R. No. 164196 June 22, 2007

CONSTANTINO T. GUMARU, petitioner,

vs.
QUIRINO STATE COLLEGE, respondent

FACTS

25 June 1985 CT Gumaru Construction and Quirino State College (QSC), through its President Julian
Alvarez, entered into an agreement for the construction of the state colleges building.
17 October 1997 Constantino Gumaru led a
complaint for damages v. QSC, Alvarez, asking for the prots his company wouldve received if they were the ones
who were hired to do a certain portion of the said building, giventhat they were the ones who constructed other
parts
8 May 1998 Atty. Carlos Aggabao, QSC counsel, moved to dismiss complaint
22 February 2001 RTC QC decided in favor of Gumaru
QSC didnt appeal, so on 5 December 2001, a Writ of Execution was issued.
11 January 2002 OSG entered its appearance as counsel for QSC, moved to quash the writ
25 November 2003 the CA quashed the writ, saying that the rule does not apply where the incorporated
government agency concerned is performing a vital governmental function, like herein state college. [see:
state immunity from suit]
Gumarus motion for reconsideration denied. Hence this petition

ISSUE + RATIO: SUBSTANTIAL

WoN QSC was represented properly in RTC QC -No. The OSG is mandated to act as the law oce of the
government. QSC is classied under the 1987 Admin Code as a chartered institution. [OSG to act as counsel for
GOCCs only when authorized by the President/head of agency concerned. QSCis NOT a GOCC.]OSG cannot refuse to
represent the government, and government agencies are admonished not to reject OSG services.

If not, WoN the lack of proper legal representationwas enough to nullify the proceedings -Yes, lack of proper
legal representation justies nullication. QSC should be given chance topresent its defenses with the benets of
OSG as its counsel. Writ of Execution is nullied. Discussion not necessary given abovementionedWoN QSCs
properties may be seized under the writ of execution

HELD: Petition denied

Petition
DENIED.
G.R. No. 134990 April 27, 2000

MANUEL M. LEYSON JR., petitioner,

vs.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, TIRSO ANTIPORDA, Chairman, UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills, and OSCAR A.
TORRALBA, President, CIIF Oil Mills, respondents.

Control and Function Test to determine Nature of Corporation (public/private)

Facts: In 1996 International Towage and Transport Corp. (ITTC), a domestic corporation engaged in shipping
business, entered into a 1 yr. contract with Legaspi Oil Company, Inc. (LEGASPI OIL), Granexport Manufacturing
Corp. (GRANEXPORT) and United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UNITED COCONUT), comprising the Coconut Industry
Investment Fund (CIIF) companies for the transport of coconut oil in bulk through MT Transasia. The majority of
shareholdings of these companies are owned by the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) as administrator of CIIF.
Under the contract, 3 month advance notice would be given to terminate the contract. However, the CIIF with their
new president Torralba terminated the contract without such advance notice and engaged another vessel, MT
Marilag.
Leyson, Ex. Vice Pres. Of ITTC filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against Torralba. In another complaint,
petitioner charged Antiporda as Chairman of UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills and Torralba with violation of the Anti- Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint finding that the case is a simple breach of
contract and that the entities involved are private corporations over which it has no jurisdiction. Motion for
reconsideration was denied. Petitioner raises the issue to the Court. He submits that based on Philippine Coconut
Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED) vs PCGG and Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, the Court has declared that the
coconut levy funds are public funds, then corporations formed and organized from those funds or whose
controlling stocks are from those funds should be regarded as government owned and/or controlled corporations.
As in the present case, since the funding or controlling interest of the companies being headed by private
respondents was given or owned by the CIIF as shown in the certification of their Corporate Secretary, it follows
that they are government owned and/or controlled corporations. Corollarily, petitioner asserts that respondents
Antiporda and Torralba are public officers subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Private respondents counter that the CIIF companies were duly organized under the Corporation Code and that
their stockholders are private individuals and entities.
Issue: Whether or not the CIIF companies are public corporation.
Held: The Court found in favor of the respondents. The jurisprudential rules invoked by petitioner are
incomplete without resorting to the definition of government owned or controlled corporation contained in par.
13, Sec. 2 Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987. It mentions 3 requisites 1) any agency
organized as a stock or non-stock corp. 2) it is vested with functions relating to public needs whether
governmental or proprietary in nature 3) owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly or in case of stock corp. at least 51% of its capital stock.
In the present case, UCPB owns 44.1% of Legaspi Oil, which is below 51% and removes it from the definition of
government owned or controlled corp. UCPB owns 91.24% of GRANEXPORT and 92.85% of United Coconut.
However, there is no showing that both were vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental
or proprietary in nature. The CIIF companies are private corporations and not within the scope of the jurisdiction
of the Office of the Ombudsman.