jurisdiction cases

7/18/2019 Jurisdiction Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jurisdiction-cases-56d512f2989d1 1/6

Bank of Commerce, petitioner v. Planters

Development Bank and Bangko Sentral ngPilipinas,respondents/Bangko Sentral ng

Pilipinas, petitioner v. Planters

Development Bank, respondent

Facts: For the 1

st

set of CB bills, RizalCommercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) was

the registered owner of 7 Central Bank (CB)

bills with a total face al!e of "hp 7# million,

which were eent!all$ sold to Bank of

Commerce (B%C), which, in t!rn, sold these CB

bills to "lanters &eelopment Bank ("&B) aseidenced b$ a '&etached ssignment*

week later, "&B sold to the B%C +reas!r$ Bills

worth "hp 7# million as eidenced b$ a +rading

%rder and Conrmation of -ale For the .nd set

of CB bills, RCBC sold . CB bills with a total

face al!e of "hp .# million to the "&B and

deliered to "&B the corresponding &etached

ssignment "&B deliered to Bancap the .CBbills which in t!rn sold the CB bills to l/

manah 0slamic 0nestment Bank of the

"hilippines, which also sold it to the B%C pon

learning of the transfers inoling the CB Bills,

the "&B informed the o2cer/in/charge of the

B-"3s 4oernment -ec!rities &epartment of

the "&B3s claim oer these CB bills, based on

the

&etached ssignments in its possession +he

re5!ests of "&B were denied b$ the o2cer/in/

charge which prompted the petitioner to le an

action so as to compel the B-" to determine

the part$ legall$ entitled to the proceeds of thes!b6ect CB bills

0ss!e: hether or not the Bangko -entral ng

"ilipinas has 6!risdiction in determining the

part$ legall$ entitled to the proceeds of the CB

bills

8eld: nder the 9ew Central Bank ct (R

7;<), the B-" is gien the responsibilit$ of

proiding polic$ directions in the areas of

mone$, banking and credit= it is gien theprimar$ ob6ectie of maintaining price stabilit$,

cond!cie to a balanced and s!stainable

growth of the econom$ and of promoting andmaintaining monetar$ stabilit$ and

conertibilit$ of the peso >oreoer, the

Constit!tion e?pressl$ grants the B-" the

power of s!perision oer the operation of

banks hile R 7;< empowers the B-" tocond!ct administratie hearings and render

6!dgment for or against an entit$ !nder its

s!perisor$ and reg!lator$ powers, the grant of

5!asi/6!dicial a!thorit$ to the B-" cannot

possibl$ e?tend to sit!ation which do not call

for the e?ercise b$ the B-" of its s!perisor$ or

reg!lator$ f!nctions oer entities within its

6!risdiction +he fact alone that the parties

inoled are banking instit!tions does not

necessaril$ call for the e?ercise b$ the B-" of

its 5!asi/6!dicial powers !nder the law

ADDITION I!!S "ANDA!#$ON% CI&IC '

SOCIA! O(%ANI)ATION, INC. *A"CSO+,Petitionervs"%A-O(!D P(OP(TIS 'O!DIN%, INC., -I!(DO I. I"P(IA!,in is capacit0 as Director, NC(, andO#SIN% AND !AND#S (%#!ATO($BOA(D *!(#B+, DPA(T"NTO NAT#(A! (SO#(CS *DN(+,(espondents

acts1 >egaworld ("riate respondent) was theregistered owner of a parcel of land located inBrg$ ddition 8ills, >andal!$ong Cit$, coeredb$ a +C+ +itle iss!ed b$ the Register of &eedson which it concept!alized the constr!ction ofa residential

condomini!m comple? called as the 'ack/ack 8eights Condomini!m* >egaworld sec!red the necessar$ clearances,licenses and permits for the pro6ect, incl!ding:1 Certicate of @ocational Aiabilit$ and&eelopment permit iss!ed b$ 8@RB. nironmental Compliance Certicate iss!edb$ &9R< B!ilding "ermit iss!ed b$ the o2ce of theB!ilding %2cial of >andal!$ong Cit$ Baranga$ Clearance iss!ed b$ the Chairmanof Baranga$ ddition 8ills, >andal!$ong Cit$

"ending constr!ction, plaintiD led a complaintbefore the R+C of "asig Cit$, Branch 1;E for:1 nn!lment of the B!ilding "ermit, C@A, CCand &eelopment "ermit=. "rohibit the iss!ance to >egaworld ofCerticate of Registration and @icense to -ellCondomini!m !nits and=< "ermanentl$ en6oin @ocal and 9ationalB!ilding %2cials from iss!ing licenses andpermits>egaworld led a >otion to &ismiss thecomplaint for lack of ca!se of action and that

6!risdiction oer the case was with 8@RB andnot with the reg!lar co!rts, howeer the R+Cdenied the motion, which lead to >egaworldling its nswer to the complaint, and the trialon the merits ens!ed, rendering decision infao!r to the petitionerggrieed with the R+C3s decision, respondentappealed the rendered decision to the Co!rt ofppeals which reersed and set aside s!chlower co!rts3 &ecision nding petitioner3sfail!re to e?ha!st administratie remediesbefore seeking 6!dicial interention fromco!rts s e?pected, petitioner led a motionfor reconsideration which howeer the Cdenied 8ence, petitioner led the instantpetition for reiew on certiorari !nder R!le; to the -!preme Co!rt

Iss2e1 hether or 9ot the C erred in itsnding abo!t the petitioner3s fail!re to e?ha!stadministratie remedies before seeking 6!dicial interention

eld1 +he co!rt nds the petition witho!t

merit t the o!tset, the parties disc!ssesiss!es, altho!gh ostensibl$ legal, act!all$re5!ire the co!rt to make ndings of facts 0t islong settled b$ law and 6!rispr!dence that theco!rt is not a trier of facts +herefore, the onl$releant iss!e to be resoled in this case iswhether or not the remed$ so!ght b$ thepetitioner in the trial co!rt is in iolation of thelegal principle of the e?ha!stion ofadministratie remedies Citing the case ofRep!blic s @acap, the co!rt e?po!nded on thedoctrine of e?ha!stion of administratieremedies and related doctrine ofprimar$ 6!risdiction in this wise:1



+he general r!le is that before a part$ ma$seek the interention of the co!rt, he sho!ldrst aail of all the means aDorded him b$administratie processes +he iss!es whichadministratie agencies are a!thorized todecide sho!ld not be s!mmaril$ taken fromthem and s!bmitted to a co!rt witho!t rstgiing s!ch administratie agenc$ theopport!nit$ to dispose of the same after d!edeliberation. Corollar$ to the doctrine of e?ha!stion ofadministratie remedies is the doctrine ofprimar$ 6!risdiction= that is, co!rts cannot orwill not determine a controers$ inoling a5!estion which is within the 6!risdiction of theadministratie trib!nal prior to the resol!tion of that 5!estion b$ the administratie trib!nal,where the 5!estion demands the e?ercise ofso!nd administratie discretion, re5!iringspecial knowledge, e?perience and serices ofthe administratie trib!nal to determinetechnical and intricate matters of fact< 9onetheless, the doctrines en!nciated whichare based on so!nd p!blic polic$ and practicalconsiderations are not inGe?ible r!les +hereare man$ accepted e?ceptions, s!ch as: here there is estoppel on the part ofthe part$ inoking the doctrine=B here the challenged administratie act ispatentl$ illegal, amo!nting to lack of

6!risdiction=C here there is !nreasonable dela$ or o2cialinaction that will irretrieabl$ pre6!dice the

complainant=& here the amo!nt inoled is relatiel$small so as to make the r!le impractical andoppressie= here the 5!estion inoled is p!rel$ legaland will !ltimatel$ hae to be decided b$ theco!rts of 6!stice=F here 6!dicial interention is !rgent=4 hen its application ma$ ca!se great andirreparable damage=8 here the controerted acts iolate d!eprocess=

0 hen the iss!e of non/e?ha!stionof administratie remedies has been renderedmoot=

H hen there is no other plain, speed$and ade5!ate remed$=I hen strong p!blic interest is inoled=@ 0n 5!o warranto proceedings0n iew of the foregoing, the co!rt nds thatnone of the aforementioned e?ceptions e?ist inthe case at bar 8ence, the co!rt concl!desthat the Co!rt of ppeals committed noreersible error in setting aside the trial co!rtdecision and dismissing said complaint8RF%R, premises considered, the petitionis hereb$ &90& and the assailed decision andresol!tion of the Co!rt of ppeals are hereb$FF0R>&

SAA&D(A &S SC

FC+-:

1J;: 9aga +elephone

Compan$ (9atelco), 0nc was organized

with "1##I a!thorized capital

1J7: 9atelco decided to increase its

a!thorized capital to "<,###,#####

s re5!ired b$ the "!blic

-erice ct, 9atelco led an application for

the approal of the increased a!thorized

capital with the then Board of

Comm!nications (B%C)

Han!ar$ E, 1J7;: approed with

conditions:

+hat the iss!ance of

the shares of stocks will be for a period of

one $ear from the date hereof, Kafter

which no f!rther iss!es will be made

witho!t preio!s a!thorit$ from this

BoardK

9atelco led its mended rticles of

0ncorporation with the -C

the original a!thorized

capital of "1##I was alread$ paid

increased capital of ".J>

the s!bscribers s!bscribed to ";E#I of

which "1;I was f!ll$ paid

capital stock of 9atelco was diided

into .1<I C- and E7I "-, both at a par

al!e of "1#Lshares

pril 1., 1J77: itho!t no prior

a!thorization from the B%C (now 9ational

+elecomm!nications Commission)

(9+C), 9atelco entered into a contract with

Comm!nication -erices, 0nc (C-0) for the

Kman!fact!re, s!ppl$, delier$ and

installationK of telephone e5!ipment

9atelco iss!ed .I sharesof C- to C-0 as downpa$ment

>a$ ;, 1J7J: iss!ed

another 1.I shares of C- to C-0

>a$ 1J, 1J7J: ann!al stockholdersM

meeting to elect their 7 directors to their

B%& for the $ear 1J7J/1JE#



"edro @opez &ee (&ee) was

!nseated as Chairman of the Board and

"resident b!t was elected as one of the

directors, together with his wife, melia

@opez &ee

C-0 was able to gain control

when their legal co!nsel, tt$ @!ciano

>agga$ (>agga$) won a seat in the Board

tt$ >agga$ became

president !pon reorganization

mong the directors: >r H!stino de

Hes!s, -r, >r "edro @opez &ee and >rs

melia C @opez &ee neer attended the

>agga$ Board thereb$ onl$ >agga$

representaties and tt$ >agga$

attended

as per contract the$

iss!ed 11<,E## shares of stock in faor of

C-0

&ee haing been !nseated led a

petition in the -C 5!estioning the alidit$of the elections

gro!nd: no alid list of

stockholders thro!gh which the right to

ote co!ld be determined

s pra$ed for a restraining order was

iss!ed b$ the -C placing o2cers of the

1J7E/1J7J 9atelco Board in hold/oer

capacit$

pon eleation to the -C: dismissed

the petition for being

premat!re= restraining order was

restrained

res!lted in the !nseating of

the >agga$ gro!p from the B%& in a

Khold/oerK capacit$

-C: ordering the holding of special

stockholderM meeting to elect the new

members of the B%& based on its ndings

of who are entitled to ote

H!ne .<, 1JE1: &ee led a petition

for certiorariLappeal with the -C en banc

-C en banc: dismissed for

lack of merit

>a$ .#, 1JE.: ntonio Aillasenor led

wL the CF0 claiming that he was an

assignee of an option to rep!rchase

<I shares of C- of 9atelco !nder a &eedof ssignment e?ec!ted in his faor

>a$ .1, 1JE.: restraining order dwas

iss!ed b$ the lower co!rt commanding

desistance from the sched!led election

!ntil f!rther orders

>a$ .., 1JE.: controlling ma6orit$ of

the stockholders proceeded with the

elections !nder the s!perision of the -C

representaties

>a$ .;, 1JE.: -C recognized the

election and the d!l$ elected directors

@opez &ee gro!p headed b$

>essrs H!stino &e Hes!s and H!lio @opez

&ee kept insisting no elections were held

and ref!sed to acate their positions

>a$ .E, 1JE.: -C iss!ed another

order directing the hold/oer directors and

o2cers to t!rn oer their respectie posts

and directing the -heriD of 9aga Cit$ and

other enforcement agencies to enforce its

order

>a$ .J, 1JE.: hold/oer o2cers

peacef!ll$ acated

H!ne ., 1JE.: Aillasenor led a charge

for contempt

-eptember 7, 1JE.: lower co!rt

rendered C-0 9ilda Ramos, @!ciano

>agga$, &esiderio -aaedra, !g!stoFederis and rnesto >ig!el, g!ilt$ of

contempt of co!rt

-eptember 17, 1JE.: C-0 gro!p led

a petition for certiorari and prohibition

with preliminar$ in6!nction or restraining

order against the CF0



pril 1,

1JE<: 0C: nn!ling contempt charge

0---:

1 L9 -C has the power and

6!risdiction to declare n!ll and

oid shares of stock iss!ed b$ 9+@C%

to C-0 for iolation of -ec .# (h) of the

"!blic -erice ct / 9%

. L9 9atelco stockholders hae a right

of preemption to the 11<,E## shares

< L9 the >a$ .., 1JE. election was

alid

8@&: &ismissed for lack of merit

1 9%

+he 6!risdiction of the -C is limited to

matters intrinsicall$ connected with the

reg!lation of corporations, partnerships

and associations and those dealing with

internal aDairs of s!ch entities= "& J#./

does not confer 6!risdiction to -C oer all

matters aDecting corporations +he 6!risdiction of the -C is

limited to deciding the controers$ in the

election of the directors and o2cers of

9atelco

+he -C is empowered b$

"& J#./ to decide intra/corporate

controersies and that is precisel$ the onl$

iss!e in this case

. 9%

+here is distinction between:

an order to issue shares on or

before >a$ 1J, 1J7J= and

actual issuance of the shares

after >a$ 1J, 1J7J / C-0 was in control of

oting shares and the Board

+he power to iss!e shares of stocks in

a corporation is lodged in the board of

directors and nostockholders meeting is

re5!ired to consider it beca!se additional

iss!ance of shares of stocks does not need

approal of the stockholders / no iolation

of preemptie right

< N-

Clear from records that it was held

within the 6!risdiction of the lower

co!rt as it does not inole an intra/

corporate matter b!t merel$ a claim of apriate part$ of the right to rep!rchase

common shares of stock of 9atelco and

that the restraining order was not meant

to stop the election d!l$ called for b$ the

-C and a matter p!rel$ within the

e?cl!sie 6!risdiction of the -C

temporar$ restraining order amo!nted

to an in6!nctie relief against the -C

since the trial 6!dge in the lower co!rt

did not hae 6!risdiction in iss!ing the

5!estioned restraining order, disobedience

thereto did not constit!te contempt

B!# BA( COCON#T PI!IPPINS &S T

ONO(AB! (ANCISCO S. TANT#ICO

Facts: +he "resident iss!ed "residential &ecree

9o .7 establishing a cocon!t stabilization

f!nd nder this decree, the "hilippine Cocon!t

!thorit$, in addition to its powers granted

!nder "residential &ecree 9o .<., was

a!thorized to form!late and immediatel$

implement a stabilization scheme for cocon!t/

based cons!mer goods,

R!les and Reg!lations goerning the collection

and disposition of the Cocon!t Cons!mers

-tabilization F!nd (CC-F) prom!lgated b$ the

Cocon!t Cons!mer -tabilization Committee

proides that the collection of le$ in eer$

rst sale of copra resecada or its e5!ialent in

terms of whole n!ts shall take eDect on !g!st

1#, 1J7< +he petitioners are all end/!sers and

as s!ch, are le$/collectors and remitters

+he respondent cting Chairman of the

Commission on !dit initiated a special a!dit of cocon!t end/!ser companies, which incl!de

herein petitioners, with respect to their

Cocon!t Cons!mers -tabilization F!nd le$

collections and the s!bsidies the$ had

receied s a res!lt of the initial ndings of

the "erformance !dit %2ce with respect onl$

to the petitioners, respondent cting C%

Chairman directed the Chairman, the

dministrator, and the >ilitar$ -!perisor of

"C and the >anager of the Cocon!t

Cons!mers -tabilization F!nd, in ario!s letters



to them (nne?es 4/. 8, 0, H, @ and 9 of

petition) to collect the short leies andoerpaid s!bsidies, and to appl$ s!bsid$ claims

to the settlement of short leies sho!ld the

petitioners fail to remit the amo!nt d!e

+he remaining iss!es all reole on the

5!estionOfter the "hilippine Cocon!t

!thorit$Othe a!thorit$ ested b$ law to

implement the stabilization scheme for the

cocon!t ind!str$ !nder "& .7, which

incl!des the collection of the le$ to s!pport

the -tabilization F!ndOhad acted, can theCommission on !dit sa$ that the r!les and

decisions of the "C are erroneo!s and n!llif$

them, to the pre6!dice of petitioners who

obedientl$ complied with said r!les and

decisionsK

0ss!e: hether or not the respondent C%

Chairman was correct in disregarding the two

resol!tions of the "C 4oerning Board for

being !ltra ires is the main iss!e in this

petition +his iss!e became academic when thethen "resident of the "hilippines informed the

-olicitor 4eneral that the 4oerning Board of

the "C wo!ld contin!e to f!nction !ntil the

formal organization of the new 4oerning

Board Following this r!ling, the respondent

C% Chairman reconsidered his earlier stand

and allowed the petitioners to get their s!bsid$

claims which he had earlier ref!sed 0n eDect,

the respondent C% Chairman eent!all$

acknowledged the alidit$ of the two

5!estioned "C resol!tions

+he petitioners also 5!estion the respondentsM

a!thorit$ to a!dit them +he$ contend that

the$ are o!tside the ambit of respondentsM

Ka!ditK power which is conned to goernment/

owned or controlled corporations

8eld: his arg!ment has no merit -ection . (1)

of rticle 0P/& of the Constit!tion proides that

K+he Commission on !dit shall hae the

power, a!thorit$ and d!t$ to e?amine, a!dit,and settle all acco!nts pertaining to the

reen!es and receipts of, and e?pendit!res or

!ses of f!nds and propert$, owned or held intr!st b$ or pertaining to, the 4oernment, or

an$ of its s!bdiisions, agencies or

instr!mentalities, incl!ding goernment/owned

or controlled corporation with original charters,

and on a post/a!dit basis (d) s!ch non/goernmental entities receiing s!bsid$ or

e5!it$ directl$ or indirectl$ from or thro!gh the

4oernment which are re5!ired b$ law or the

granting instit!tion to s!bmit to s!ch a!dit as a

condition of s!bsid$ or e5!it$K (mphasis

s!pplied) +he Constit!tion formall$ embodies

the long established r!le that priate entities

who handle goernment f!nds or s!bsidies in

tr!st ma$ be e?amined or a!dited in their

handling of said f!nds b$ goernment a!ditors

doctrine of primar$ 6!risdiction the co!rts

cannot or will not determine a controers$

inoling a 5!estion which is within the 6!risdiction of an administratie trib!nal prior

to the decision of that 5!estion b$ the

administratie trib!nal, where the 5!estion

demands the e?ercise of so!nd administratie

discretion re5!iring the special knowledge,

e?perience, and serices of the administratie

trib!nal to determine technical and intricate

matters of fact, and a !niformit$ of r!ling is

essential to compl$ with the "!rposes of the

reg!lator$ stat!te administeredK

0n the case at bar, the petitioners hae not

shown thro!gh the la$ing down of concrete

fact!al fo!ndations that the respondentsM

5!estioned acts were done with grae ab!se of

discretion amo!nting to lack of 6!risdiction

%A(CIA &S 3C#TI& SC(TA($

Facts: +he -!preme Co!rt has dismissed the

petition of former rmed Forces of the

"hilippines (F") comptroller >a6or 4eneral

4arlos F 4arcia that so!ght to ann!l the

-eptember J, .#11 Conrmation of -entence

b$ the %2ce of the "resident (%") +hesentence handed down b$ the -pecial 4eneral

Co!rt >artial 9o . had ordered his

dishonorable discharge from serice, forfeit!reof all his pa$ and allowances, and connement

for two $ears in a penitentiar$ %n -eptember

1, .#11, or a week after the %" conrmed the

sentence of the co!rt martial against him,

4arcia was arrested and detained andcontin!es to be detained at the ma?im!m

sec!rit$ compo!nd of the 9ational "enitentiar$

in >!ntinl!pa 4arcia, tried b$ the -pecial

4eneral Co!rt >artial 9R ., was charged with

and conicted of iolation of the Jth rticle of

ar (Cond!ct nbecoming an %2cer and

4entleman) and iolation of the J7th rticle of

ar (Cond!ct "re6!dicial to 4ood %rder and

>ilitar$ &iscipline) for failing to disclose all his

assets in his -worn -tatement of ssets and

@iabilities and 9etworth for the $ear .##< as

re5!ired b$ R <#1J, as amended in relation to

R 71<

0ss!e: hether or not the o2ce of the

"resident commit grae ab!se of discretion

8eld: +he co!rt held that the %" did not

commit an$ grae ab!se of discretion in iss!ing

the Conrmation of -entence +he Co!rt

!pheld the a!thorit$ of the "resident, as

Commander/in/Chief, to conrm the sentence

0t held that the 4eneral Co!rt >artial had

6!risdiction oer the case since it was

indisp!table that 4arcia was an o2cer in the

actie serice of F" when he committed the

iolations !ntil his arraignment 4arcia3s

mandator$ retirement on 9oember 1E, .##

did not diest the 4eneral Co!rt >artial of its

6!risdiction nd since the 4eneral Co!rt

>artial has 6!risdiction, the Co!rt held that the

"resident, as Commander/in/Chief, also

ac5!ired 6!risdiction as mandated !nder rticle

7 of the rticles of ar

+he Co!rt stressed that rticle E of the

rticles of ar ests on the "resident, as

Commander/in/Chief, the power to approe or

disapproe the entire or an$ part of the

sentence gien b$ the co!rt martial, while



rticle J of the same grants the "resident the

power to mitigate or remit a sentence

'+h!s, the power of the "resident to conrm,

mitigate and remit a sentence of erring militar$

personnel is a clear recognition of the

s!periorit$ of ciilian a!thorit$ oer the

militar$ 8oweer, altho!gh the law (rticles ofar) which conferred those powers to the

"resident is silent as to the ded!ction of the

period of preentie connement to the

penalt$ imposed, as disc!ssed earlier, s!ch is

also the right of an acc!sed proided for b$rticle .J of the R"C,* held the Co!rt

jurisdiction cases

Documents