Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs COURT OF APPEALS tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

(Romero 1, 1994) HLURB has the expertise to determine the basic technical issue of whether the
alleged deviations from the building plans and the technical specifications
FACTS affect the soundness and structural strength of the house.
Petitioners attempt to separate their rights to the lot, which they admit is within
The residents of Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City raised a complaint HLURB jurisdiction, and their rights to the house built on the lot, which they
with the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), seeking to stop the operation allege is enforceable in regular courts.
of the City Government of Caloocan of an 8.6 hectare open garbage dumpsite in Both the Contract to Sell and Deed of Sale involve the sale and purchase of
Tala Estate, due to its harmful effects on the health of the residents and the pollution the house and lot unit. There is a clear intent by the parties that the house
of the surrounding water. and lot be treated as the single object of their contracts.
LLDA discovered that the City Government of Caloocan has been maintaining the Allowing the splitting of a single cause of action would result in duplicity of
open dumpsite at the Camarin Area without a requisite Environmental Compliance suits and possible conflicting findings by 2 tribunals on the same claim.
Certificate from the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR. They also
found the water to have been directly contaminated by the operation of the
dumpsite. MATEO V. CA
LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order against the City Government and other August 14, 1995 | J. Puno
entities to completely halt, stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of
garbage and other waste matter on the Camarin dumpsite. Facts
The City Government went to the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City to file an Upon complaint of some Morong Water District (MOWAD) employees,
action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order and sought to be petitioners, all Board Members of MOWAD, conducted an investigation on
declared as the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety and private respondent Edgar Sta. Maria, then General Manager.
enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its Sta. Maria was then placed under preventive suspension and San Diego was
territorial jurisdiction. designated in his place. Sta. Maria was later dismissed on January 7, 1993.
LLDA sought to dismiss the complaint, invoking the Pollution Control Law that the January 18, 1993 private respondent filed a Special Civil Action for Quo
review of cease and desist orders of that nature falls under the Court of Appeals and Warranto and Mandamus with preliminary injunction before the RTC.
not the RTC. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on 2 grounds:
RTC denied LLDAs motion to dismiss, and issued a writ of preliminary injunction o Court had no jurisdiction over disciplinary actions of government
enjoining LLDA from enforcing the cease and desist order during the pendency of employees which is vested exclusively in the Civil Service Comission
the case. o Quo warranto was not the proper remedy
The Court of Appeals promulgated a decision that ruled that the LLDA has no Motion to dismiss and MFR dismissed.
power and authority to issue a cease and desist order enjoining the
CA likewise dismissed petition and denied petitioners MFR.
dumping of garbage.
Issue
The residents seek a review of the decision. WoN the RTC of Rizal has jurisdiction over cases involving dismissal of
an employee of a quasi-public corporation. NO
ISSUE
Ratio
WoN the LLDA has authority and power to issue an order which, in its nature and effect MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation created pursuant to PD 198 (Provincial
was injunctive. Water Utilities Act of 1973).
Davao City Water District v. CSC: employees of government-owned or
THEORY OF THE PARTIESwill not determine a controversy where the controlled corporations with original charter fall under the jurisdiction of the
issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion CSC.
requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of GOCCs are
governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and
Regulations.
1 I love Justice Romero. Her decisions are so organised. <3
1
PD 807, EO 292 and Rule II, Sec1 of Memorandum Circular No. 44 series of Necessity and in issuing a temporary permit since GrandAir didn't have a
1990 of the CSC categorically provide that the party aggrieved by a decision, legislative franchise to engage in scheduled domestic air transportation; a
ruling, order, or action of an agency of the government involving termination of legislative franchise may only be granted by Congress as espoused in Sec. 11,
services may appeal to the Commission within 15 days. Thereafter, private Art. 12 and Sec. 1, Art. 6 of Consti2.
respondent could go on certiorari to this Court under Rule 65 of the RoC if he Respondent GrandAir relies on its interpretation of RA 776 which follows the
still feels aggrieved by the ruling of the CSC. pronouncements of the CA in Avia Filipinas v CAB and Silangan Airways v
Mancita v. Barcinas: The CSC, under the constitution, is the single arbiter of Grand Int'l Airways where CA upheld the authority of the Board to issue such
all contests relating to the civil service, and as such, its judgments are authority in the absence of a legislative franchise which authority is derived
unappealable and subject only to the SCs certiorari judgment. from Sec 10 RA 776
Mancita however no longer governs for under the present rule, final resolutions
of the CSC shall be appealable to the CA.
In any event, whether under the old rule or the present rule, RTCs have no ISSUES:
jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and employees
1. WoN CAB has jurisdiction over GrandAir's Application for a Temporary
covered by the Civil Service Law.
Operating Permit? YES
2. WoN a legislative franchise is an absolute requirement for the Board to have
PAL v. Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) (Torres Jr, 1997) authority to issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity? NO

FACTS:
RATIO:
Private Respondent Grandair applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity with the Board.
Accordingly, the Chief Hearing Officer of the CAB issued a Notice of Hearing 1. CAB has jurisdiction over GrandAir's Application for a Temporary Operating
setting the application for initial hearing and directing GrandAir to serve a copy Permit. In PAL v. CAB (1968), it was established that RA 776 expressly
of the application and notice to all scheduled Philippine Domestic operators. authorized the Board to issue a temporary operating permit or Certificate of
GrandAir filed its Compliance, and requested for the issuance of a Temporary Public Convenience and Necessity. The CAB's authority togrant a
Operating Permit temporary permit upon its own initiative strongly suggests the power to
Petitioner PAL filed an Opposition to the application for a Certificate of Public exercise said authority, even before the presentation of evidence.
Convenience and Necessity with one of the grounds as: (1) CAB has no Assuming arguendo that a legislative franchise is a prerequisite to the issuance
jurisdiction to hear his application until the latter has first obtained a franchise of a permit, its absence doesn't affect the jurisdiction of the Board to
to operate from Congress but the CAB Chief Operating Officer denied the hear the application, but tolls only upon the ultimate issuance of the
opposition requested permit.
Petitioner PAL then opposed private respondent's application for a temporary
permit since applicant didn't possess the required fitness and capability and
applicant has failed to prove that there's a clear and urgent public need for the The power to authorize and control the operation of a public utility is a prerogative of the
services applied for legislature. However, Congress has granted administrative agencies the power to grant
The Board approved the issuance of a Temporary Operating Permit for a period licenses for, or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. It is generally
of 3 months and it justified its assumption of jurisdiction over GrandAir's recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state through a
application duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant franchises has
upon motion by private respondent GrandAir, the temporary permit was frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a legislative
extended for 6 months nature. With this, privileges conferred by grant by local authorities as agents of the state
Thus, this petition where petitioner PAL argues that respondent Board acted
beyond its powers and jurisdiction in taking cognizance of GrandAir's
application for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and 2 See page 546 footnote of case
2
constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act The Court said that the terms convenience and necessity, if used together in a
of the Legislature. statute, are usually construed together. Public convenience and necessity
exists when the proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the public and
supply a need which the existing facilities do not adequately afford. It doesn't
mean or require an actual physical necessity or an indispensable thing. It is the
The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with the law which determines the requisites for the issuance of the certification and not
power to regulate and control the operation of public services under reasonable rules and the title indicating the certificate.
regulations and as a general rule, Courts will not interfere with the exercise of that
discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right. Thus, the CAB
has the authority to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or
Temporary Operating Permit to a domestic air transport operator who, though ERB vs. Court of Appeals
not possessing a legislative franchise, meets all the other requirements Panganiban, J. | March 25, 1999
prescribed by law.
FACTS:
- The members of the Association of Mindanao Industries (AMI) are enterprises
which were among those granted direct connection facility by the National Power
Congress, by giving CAB the power to issue permits, has delegated to the Corporation (Napocor) although operating within the franchise area of Iligan Light
body the authority to determine the capability and competence of a prospective and Power, Inc. (Iligan).
domestic air transport operator to engage in such venture. Congress has set - Iligan filed with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) a petition for the
specific limitations on how such authority should be exercised in RA implementation of the 1987 Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Power Sector, praying
776 by specifying the requirements to determine the competency of a specificaly that the direct supply of power to industries within its franchise area
prospective operator to engage in the public service of air (i.e. AMI) be discontinued by Napocor.
transportation and the procedure for the processing of application of a - The Cabinet Policy Reforms provides, in part:
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. o Continue direct connectionsuntil such time as the appropriate
regulatory board determines that direct connetion of industry to Napocor
is no longer necessary in the franchise area.with satisfactory
2. There's nothing in the law nor in the Constitution that indicates that a legislative guarantees of non-prejudice to industries..
franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a - In its petition, Iligan alleged that it can meet, even surpass the set of financial
domestic air transport operator. Although Sec. 11 of Art. 12 recognizes standards adopted by the ERB pursuant to the policy guidelines set by the
Congress' control over any franchise certificate or authority to operate a public Cabinet.
utility, it doesn't mean Congress has exclusive authority to issue the same. In - AMI filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the following grounds:
Sec. 103, Congress intended to delegate the authority to regulate the issuance o Lack of jurisdiction on the part of ERB to hear the petition
of a license to operate domestic air transport services. o Failure to state a cause of action
o Non-joinder of indispensable parties
- CA held that the core of the issue is related to the distribution and marketing of
Petitioner PAL argues that a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is energy resources and is hence within the jurisdiction of the Department of
issued to a public service for which a franchise is required by law as Energy, pursuant to RA 7638.
distinguished from a Certificate of Public Convenience which is an
authorization issued for the operation of public services for which no franchise ISSUE:
is required by law. - WON the ERB has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving direct
connection issues.
o Iligan claims that RA 7638 transferred to the DOE ERBs non-price
regulatory powers and functions relative to the petroleum industry. This
3See page 551 for the provision argument was founded on the definition of energy source under the act.
3
from the time of its incorporation, the petitioners subsequently amended the SNSNA's by-
HELD: laws by changing the term of office of the Board of Trustees from 1yr to 2 yrs. Despite
- NO. Pursuant to RA 7638, it is now the Department of Energy (DOE) that has amendments, elections were held by private respondents Dino Group, from where they
jurisdiction. emerged as the new officers. Then again, the Unilongo group established Sto. Nino de
Cul de Sac Homeowners Association Inc. (CHSHA) and registered the same with the
RATIO: Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation (HIGC). From this arise the controversy on who
- The court cited the consolidated cases (1) NAPOCOR vs. CA and Cagayan Electric should represent the homeowners and hold the offices and positions therefrom. Private
Power and (2) Phividec Industrial Authority vs. CA and Cagayan Electric Power, respondents, in their quo warranto complaints, sought to ouster the Unilongo group from
where it was held that: the Board of Trustees of the SNSNAI and to dissolve the CDSHA and declare its
o The determination of which of the two public utilities has the right to supply registration with the HIGC null and void for being in contravention of law and illegally
electric power to an area which is within the coverage of both is certainly formed. In response, two pleadings, an answer with counterclaim and a motion to
not a rate-fixing function which should remain with the ERB. It deals with dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, were filed by
the regulation of the distribution of energy resources, which under EO 172 petitioners. They contended that disputes involving homeowners association fall under
is a function of ERB. However, with the enactment of RA 7638, the DOE the exclusive jurisdiction of the HIGC. The motion to dismiss was denied. Dissatisfied,
took over such functions. petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which
- It is now the DOE that has jurisdiction over the regulation of the marketing and the was again denied for lack of merit. On appeal, petitioners contended that the regular
distribution of energy resources. Although formerly belonging to the ERB, RA 7638 courts have no jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies.
transferred the non-rate-fixing jurisdiction power and functions of the ERB to the
DOE. ISSUE: Whether or not the regular courts have jurisdiction over intra-corporate
- The application for the NPCs direct supply or disconnection of power involve controversies.
essentially the distribution of energy resources, and not by any incident, the
determination of power rates. Hence, these applications must be resolved by the HELD: NO. HIGC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-corporate
DOE. controversies. The jurisdiction of the SEC over intra-corporate matters concerning
- Also, the argument that electricity is not an energy resource is wrong. EO 172 homeowners association including their dissolution as found in P.D 902-A has been
provides that: transferred to the Home Insurance and Guarantee Corporation. Whatever ambiguities
o Energy Resource is defined as any substance or phenomenn which by that may arise regarding jurisdiction over quo warranto action against corporation or
itself or in combination with othersemanates, or generatesenergy. person usurping corporate offices are classified and resolved by the 1997 Rules of Civil
o Electric power or electricity is defined as an imponderable and invisible Procedure, as amended. Quo Warranto actions against corporation or person using
agent producing light, hear, chemical decomposition, and other physical corporate offices fall under the jurisdiction of SEC, unless otherwise provided for by law,
phenomena. such as where the corporate entities involved are homeowners associations, in which
- Undoubtedly, therefore, electricity, which produces energy, is an energy resource. case jurisdiction is lodged with the Home Insurance and Guarantee Corporation (HIGC).
The regulation of its distribution is, therefore, among those functions formerly
belonging to the ERB, which have been transferred to the DOE.

Deltaventures Resources, Inc. v. Cabato | Quisumbing,J.


UNILONGO VS CA
April 5, 1999; Kapunan, J. FACTS
LA Olegario rendered a decision finding that the laborers of Green Mountain
Farms had been illegally dismissed and that Green Mountain Farms, et al.
FACTS: Sto. Nino de Cul de Sac Neighborhood Association Inc. (SNSNAI) was were guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.
incorporated and registered with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) by The laborers filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution before the
petitioners Unilongo Group, comprising them as the original Board of Trustees. However, NLRC.
since no elections for a new Board of Trustees and for a new set of officers were held LA Rivera issued a writ of execution, directing Deputy Sheriff Ventura to

4
execute the judgment against Green Mountain Farms, et al. o Whatever irregularities attended the issuance and execution of the
o Shreiff Ventura proceeded to garnish personal properties of Green alias writ of execution should be referred to the same administrative
Mountain Farms, et al., which were found to be insufficient to satisfy tribunal which rendered the decision because any court which
the monetary award. issued a writ of execution has the inherent power to correct
o Sheriff Ventura proceeded to levy upon a real property, registered in errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own
the name of Roberto Ongpin, one of the respondents. processes.
Deltaventures Resources, Inc. filed a third-party claim before the NLRC, o The power of the Labor Arbiter to issue a writ of execution carries
asserting ownership over the property levied. with it the power to inquire into the correctness of the execution of his
o LA Rivera ordered the suspension of the auction sale until the merits decision and to consider whatever supervening events might
of petitioner's claim has been resolved. transpire during such execution.

However, Deltaventures filed a complaint for injunction and damages with Finally, the injunction cannot prosper under Article 254, which explicitly
prayer for the issuance of a temporary retraining order against the Sheriff (on prohibits issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction or restraining
the same grounds as the third-party claim) with the Regional Trial Court. order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes by any court
o Deltaventures filed an amended complaint to implead LA Rivera and or other entity.
the laborers of Green Mountain Farms. o Petitioner should have filed its third-party claim before the Labor
Laborers of Green Mountain Farms moved for the dismissal of the civil case on Arbiter, from whom the writ of execution originated, before instituting
the ground of the lack or jurisdiction of the RTCGRANTED. said civil case.

Moreover, the RTC, being a co-equal body of the NLRC, has no jurisdiction
ISSUE to issue any restraining order or injunction to enjoin the execution of
WoN the RTC may take cognizance of the complaint filed by Deltaventures and any decision of the latter. 27
consequently provide the injunction relief sought. NO.

Stated differently, WoN the acts complained of are related to, connected or DISPOSITIVE
interwoven with the cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor The order of dismissal by Judge Cabato are AFFIRMED, and the records of this case
arbiter or the NLRC.YES. are hereby REMANDED to the NLRC for further proceedings. 1wphi1.nt

RATIO

The third-party claim was filed by Deltaventures by reason of a writ of Cagayan Electric Power vs. Collera | Pardo, J. (2000)
execution to enforce the NLRCs decision issued by Sheriff Ventura against a
property to which it claims ownership. FACTS
o And although the complaint before the RTC was for the recovery of
- Respondents were customers of petitioner Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company,
possession and injunction, in essence it was an action challenging Inc.
the legality or propriety of the levy, and was, in effect a motion
to quash the writ of execution of a decision rendered on a case of - Since 1977, petitioner had been collecting payments for electric consumption from
Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice, which was properly within respondents under the so-called Power Adjustment Clause without deducting the
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. discounts and other credit adjustments granted by the National Power Corporation.
o And as the subject matter of the third party claim is but an incident of
the labor case, such is a matter beyond the jurisdiction of the RTC. - In 1985, respondents tendered payments for their individual bills less charges for power

Moreover, since the jurisdiction to try such cases pertained exclusively to the cost adjustment, currency exchange rate adjustment and surcharge, which petitioner
proper labor official concerned under the Department of Labor and refused to accept. Because of petitioners refusal, respondents consigned their payments
Employment (i.e., the NLRC), to hold otherwise would be to sanction split to the court.
jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.

Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties - Respondents filed with the RTC a complaint against petitioner for unjust enrichment,
but continues until the case is terminated. recovery of sums of money.

5
- RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the FACTS
subject matter of the complaint which was within the jurisdiction of the Board of Energy,
now the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) under Section 9 (c), PD 1206. The Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) received complaints from
disgruntled members of the Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc.
- CA reversed the trial court, and remanded the case. (DARBCI), an agrarian reform cooperative, alleging the mismanagement and/or
misappropriation of funds of DARBCIs incumbent officers and members of the
board of directors.
In response to these complaints, CDA issued:
ISSUE/S & HELD: 1. An order freezing the funds of DARBCI and creating a management committee
to manage the affairs of said cooperative.
Whether jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint is vested with regular courts
2. A resolution directing the holding of a special general assembly of the
or the Energy Regulatory Board. RTC.
members of DARBCI and the creation of an ad hoc election committee to
supervise the election of officers and members of the board of directors.
The incumbent officers/members of the board of director questioned the order and
RATIONALE resolution (which were issued on separate occasion) with the ordinary courts.
Investa Land Corporation, who was dealing with DARBCI that time, also filed a
- The complaint does not charge any violation of either currency exchange rate complaint to enjoin the CDA from enforcing its orders.
adjustment (CERA) or power cost adjustment (PCA). Respondents only allege that While the cases were pending, the members of DARBCI, on their own initiative,
petitioner charged them with the full rate of electric consumption despite absence of any convened a general assembly and held an election effectively replacing the private
increases in the cost of energy. respondents (the complained officers).
The Court of Appeals, however, promulgated a decision on the case for prohibition,
- The regional trial court is a court of general jurisdiction. On the other hand, Republic Act ordering the CDA to perpetually cease and desist from the case and reinstating the
No. 6173, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1206 empowered the ERB to regulate members of the board of directors who were ousted by virtue of the questioned
and fix the power rates to be charged by electric companies. The power to fix rates of Orders.
electric consumption does not carry with it the power to determine whether or not Motion for Reconsideration was denied, instant petition to the Supreme Court.
petitioner is guilty of overcharging customers for consumption of electric power. This falls
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. ISSUE
- We have ruled that the question of determining the breakdown and itemization of the Whether or not the Cooperative Development Authority is vested with quasi-judicial
power adjustment billed by an electric power company to its customers is not a matter authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes.
that pertains to the ERBs jurisdiction, but that of the RTC.
RULING
- Petitioner is a public utility company. If, indeed, petitioner used the deposits, discounts,
surcharges, PCA, and CERA rates as instruments to obtain undue profits, then No, the CDA is devoid of any quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative
respondents may have causes of action against petitioner to be litigated before the disputes and more particularly disputes as regards the election of the members of the
regular courts and decided on the basis of evidence which the parties may present Board of Directors and officers of cooperatives. The authority to conduct hearings or
during the trial. inquiries and the power to hold any person in contempt may be exercised by the CDA
only in the performance of its administrative functions under RA No. 6939.

The CDA invokes the power vested by 3 of Republic Act No. 6939 (the enabling
ARRANZA vs. BF Homes charter of the CDA). However, after examination of all the powers, functions, and
responsibilities enumerated in the section, there is no provision providing for such
adjudicative powers.
COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs DOLEFIL AGRARIAN
REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE, INC. (De Leon, 2002)
6
o The language of RA No. 6939 provides for purely administrative functions
which consist of policy-making, registration, fiscal and technical
assistance to cooperatives and implementation of cooperative laws.
o Nowhere in the said law can it be found any express grant to the
CDA of authority to adjudicate cooperative disputes.
At most, it could facilitate mediation and conciliation of disputes, and 8 of the same
Act expressly states that if no mediation or conciliation succeeds within three (3)
months, a certificate of non-resolution shall be issued by the commission prior to the
filing of appropriate action before the proper courts.
Being an administrative agency, the CDA has only powers as are expressly granted
to it by law and those which are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof.
Looking into the legislative records of deliberations for the said act, it is clear that
the Congressmen intended the ordinary courts to resolve disputes between
cooperatives.
o This is in line with the policy of government granting autonomy to
cooperatives and minimising intervention in their own disputes (thats why
they encourage conciliation and mediation).