This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
of performing artists to Japan and other destinations. This was rela ed howe!er with the introduction of the "ntertainment #ndustry $d!isory Council which later proposed a plan to %&"$ to screen and train performing artists see'ing to go abroad. #n pursuant to the proposal %&"$ and the secretary of D&(" sought a ) step plan to reali*e the plan which included an $rtist+s ,ecord -oo' which a performing artist must ac.uire prior to being deployed abroad. The /ederation of Talent Managers of the %hilippines assailed the !alidity of the said regulation as it !iolated the right to tra!el, abridge e isting contracts and rights and depri!es artists of their indi!idual rights. JMM inter!ened to bolster the cause of /"TM&%. The lower court ruled in fa!or of "#$C. ISSUE: 0hether or not the regulation by "#$C is !alid. HELD: The SC ruled in fa!or of the lower court. The regulation is a !alid e ercise of police power. %olice power concerns go!ernment enactments which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare or the common good. $s the assailed Department &rder en1oys a presumed !alidity, it follows that the burden rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said order, particularly, its $,- re.uirement, does not enhance the public welfare or was e ercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. The welfare of /ilipino performing artists, particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of Department &rder 2o. 3. Short of a total and absolute ban against the deployment of performing artists to 4high ris'5 destinations, a measure which would only dri!e recruitment further underground, the new scheme at the !ery least rationali*es the method of screening performing artists by re.uiring reasonable educational and artistic s'ills from them and limits deployment to only those indi!iduals ade.uately prepared for the unpredictable demands of employment as artists abroad. #t cannot be gainsaid that this scheme at least lessens the room for e ploitation by unscrupulous indi!iduals and agencies.
[G.R. No. 122917. July 12, 1999]
MARITES BERNARDO, ELVIRA GO DIAMANTE, REBECCA E. DAVID, DAVID P. PASCUAL, RA UEL ESTILLER, ALBERT !ALLARE, EDMUND M. CORTE", JOSELITO O. AGDON GEORGE P. LIGUTAN JR., CELSO M. #A"AR, ALE$ G. CORPU", RONALD M. DEL%IN, RO&ENA M. TABA UERO, CORA"ON C. DELOS RE#ES, ROBERT G. NOORA, MILAGROS O. LE UIGAN, ADRIANA %. TATLONG!ARI, I'E CABANDUCOS, COCO#
NOBELLO, DORENDA CANTIMBU!AN, ROBERT MARCELO, LILIBET! . MARMOLEJO, JOSE E. SALES, ISABEL MAMAUAG, VIOLETA G. MONTES, ALBINO TECSON, MELOD# V. GRUELA, BERNADET! D. AGERO, C#NT!IA DE VERA, LANI R. CORTE", MA. ISABEL B. CONCEPCION, DINDO VALERIO, "ENAIDA MATA, ARIEL DEL PILAR, MARGARET CECILIA CANO"A, T!ELMA SEBASTIAN, MA. JEANETTE CERVANTES, JEANNIE RAMIL, RO"AIDA PASCUAL, PIN'# BALOLOA, ELI"ABET! VENTURA, GRACE S. PARDO ( RICO TIMOSA, petitioners vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION ( %AR EAST BAN' AND TRUST COMPAN#, respondents. DECISION
The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and onditions of emplo!ment as qualified able"bodied emplo!ees# On e the! ha$e attained the status of regular %or&ers' the! should be a orded all the benefits granted b! la%' not%ithstanding %ritten or $erbal ontra ts to the ontrar!# This treatment is rooted not merel! on harit! or a ommodation' but on (usti e for all#
Challenged in the Petition for Certiorari)*+ before us is the ,une -.' *//0 De ision )-+ of the National 1abor Relations Commission 2N1RC3')4+ %hi h affirmed the 5ugust' -- *//6 ruling of 1abor 5rbiter Cornelio 1# 1insangan# The labor arbiter7s De ision disposed as follo%s8)6+
9:H;R;<OR;' (udgment is hereb! rendered dismissing the abo$e"mentioned omplaint for la & of merit#=
5lso assailed is the 5ugust 6' *//0 Resolution )0+ of the N1RC' %hi h denied the Motion for
The fa ts %ere summari>ed b! the N1RC in this %ise8 )?+ 9Complainants numbering 64 2p# *@?' Re ords3 are deaf"mutes %ho %ere hired on $arious periods from */AA to *//4 b! respondent <ar ;ast Ban& and Trust Co# as
Mone! Sorters and Counters through a uniforml! %orded agreement alled C;mplo!ment Contra t for Handi apped :or&ers7# 2pp# ?A D ?/' Re ords3 The full teEt of said agreement is quoted belo%8 C;MP1OFM;NT CONTR5CT <OR H5NDIC5PP;D :ORG;RS This Contra t' entered into b! and bet%een8 <5R ;5ST B5NG 5ND TRHST COMP5NF' a uni$ersal ban&ing orporation dul! organi>ed and eEisting under and b! $irtue of the la%s of the Philippines' %ith business address at <;BTC Building' Muralla' Intramuros' Manila' represented herein b! its 5ssistant Vi e President' MR# <1OR;NDO I# M5R5N5N' 2hereinafter referred to as the CB5NG73J " and " KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK' KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !ears old' of legal age' KKKKKKKKKKKKK' and residing at KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2hereinafter referred to as the 2C;MP1OF;;73# :ITN;SS;TH8 That :H;R;5S' the B5NG' ogni>ant of its so ial responsibilit!' reali>es that there is a need to pro$ide disabled and handi apped persons gainful emplo!ment and opportunities to reali>e their potentials' uplift their so io"e onomi %ell being and %elfare and ma&e them produ ti$e' self"reliant and useful iti>ens to enable them to full! integrate in the mainstream of so iet!J :H;R;5S' there are ertain positions in the B5NG %hi h ma! be filled"up b! disabled and handi apped persons' parti ularl! deaf"mutes' and the B5NG ha)s+ been approa hed b! some i$i "minded iti>ens and authori>ed go$ernment agen ies )regarding+ the possibilit! of hiring handi apped %or&ers for these positionsJ :H;R;5S' the ;MP1OF;; is one of those handi apped %or&ers %ho )%ere+ re ommended for possible emplo!ment %ith the B5NGJ NO:' TH;R;<OR;' for and in onsideration of the foregoing premises and in omplian e %ith 5rti le A. of the 1abor Code of the Philippines as amended' the B5NG and the ;MP1OF;; ha$e entered into this ;mplo!ment Contra t as follo%s8 *# The B5NG agrees to emplo! and train the ;MP1OF;;' and the ;MP1OF;; agrees to diligentl! and faithfull! %or& %ith the B5NG' as Mone! Sorter andCounter#
. shall be entitled to an initial ompensation of P**A#. ma! be required to perform o$ertime %or& as ir umstan e ma! %arrant' for %hi h o$ertime %or& heLshe )shall+ be paid an additional ompensation of *-0M of his dail! rate if performed during ordinar! da!s and *4.MP1OF. shall undergo a training period of one 2*3 month' after %hi h the B5NG shall determine %hether or not heLshe should be allo%ed to finish the remaining term of this Contra t# 6# The .MP1OF..-# The . binds himselfLherself to abide )b!+ and ompl! %ith all the B5NG Rules and Regulations and Poli ies' and to ondu t himselfLherself in a manner eEpe ted of all emplo!ees of the B5NG# A# The .. shall be fi$e 203 da!s per %ee&' from Monda!s thru <rida!s' at eight 2A3 hours a da!# The . shall li&e%ise be entitled to the follo%ing benefits8 Proportionate *4 month pa! based on his basi dail! %age# th <i$e 203 da!s in enti$e lea$e# SSS premium pa!ment# @# The .MP1OF.. a &no%ledges the fa t that heLshe had been emplo!ed under a spe ial emplo!ment program of the B5NG' for %hi h reason the standard hiring . shall perform among others' the follo%ing duties and responsibilities8 i Sort out bills a ording to olorJ ii# Count ea h denomination per hundred' either manuall! or %ith the aid of a ounting ma hineJ iii# i$# $# :rap and label bills per hundredJ Put the %rapped bills into bundlesJ and Submit bundled bills to the ban& teller for $erifi ation# 4# The ....MP1OF. per da!' sub(e t to ad(ustment in the sole (udgment of the B5NG' pa!able e$er! *0 and end of the month# th 0# The regular %or& s hedule of the ..MP1OF.M if performed during Saturda! or )a+ rest da!# ?# i# ii# iii# The .MP1OF.MP1OF..MP1OF.
7s emplo!ment %ith the B5NG shall be go$erned solel! and eE lusi$el! b! this Contra t and b! the appli able rules and regulations that the Department of 1abor and .SS :H...' nineteen 2*/3J in *//* siE 2?3J in *//-' siE 2?3 and in *//4' t%ent!"one 2-*3# Their emplo!ment)s+ %ere rene%ed e$er! siE months su h that b! the time this ase arose' there %ere fift!"siE 20?3 deaf"mutes %ho %ere emplo!ed b! respondent under the said emplo!ment agreement# The last one %as Thelma Malindo! %ho %as emplo!ed in *//.MP1OF. hereb! a &no%ledges that the pro$isions of Boo& SiE of the 1abor Code of the Philippines as amended' parti ularl! on regulation of emplo!ment and separation pa! are not appli able to himLher# /# The .O<' the parties' ha$e hereunto affiEed their signature)s+ this KKKK da! of KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK' KKKKKKKKKKKK at Intramuros' Manila' Philippines#7 9In */AA' t%o 2-3 deaf"mutes %ere hired under this 5greementJ in */A/ another t%o 2-3J in *//. a &no%ledges and a epts the fa t that the terms and onditions of the emplo!ment generall! obser$ed b! the B5NG %ith respe t to the B5NG7s regular emplo!ee are not appli able to the .MP1OF.and %hose ontra t eEpired on .requirements of the B5NG %ere not applied in hisLher ase# Consequentl!' the .MP1OF.mplo!ment ma! issue in onne tion %ith the emplo!ment of disabled and handi apped %or&ers# More spe ifi all!' the .R..' and that therefore' the terms and onditions of the .MP1OF..mplo!ment Contra t shall be for a period of siE 2?3 months or from KKKK to KKKK unless earlier terminated b! the B5NG for an! (ust or reasonable ause# 5n! ontinuation or eEtension of this Contra t shall be in %riting and therefore this Contra t %ill automati all! eEpire at the end of its terms unless rene%ed in %riting b! the B5NG# IN :ITN.ul! *//4# EEE EEE EEE 9Dis laiming that omplainants %ere regular emplo!ees' respondent <ar .ast Ban& and Trust Compan! maintained that omplainants %ho are a spe ial lass of %or&ers N the hearing impaired emplo!ees %ere hired temporaril! under )a+ spe ial emplo!ment arrangement %hi h %as a result of o$ertures made b! some i$i and politi al personalities to the respondent Ban&J that omplainant)s+ %ere hired due to Cpa&iusap7 %hi h must be onsidered in the light of the onteEt of the respondent Ban&7s orporate philosoph! as %ell as its areer and %or&ing en$ironment %hi h is to maintain and strengthen a orps of professionals trained and qualified offi ers and regular emplo!ees %ho are ba alaureate degree holders from eE ellent s hools %hi h is an unbending poli ! in the hiring of regular emplo!eesJ that in addition to this' training ontinues so that the regular emplo!ee gro%s in the orporate ladderJ that the idea of hiring handi apped %or&ers %as a eptable to them onl! on a spe ial .
2/.DMHND M# CORT.OS.B. . ** .RT H5115R.CC5 . /.STI11.5N /* *0 .5N 0 NOV D+.R /6 .5N /6 ?# 51B.arrangement basisJ that it adopted the spe ial program to help tide o$er a group of handi apped %or&ers su h as deaf"mutes li&e the omplainants %ho ould do manual %or& for the respondent Ban&J that the tas& of ounting and sorting of bills %hi h %as being performed b! tellers ould be assigned to deaf"mutesJ that the ounting and sorting of mone! are tellering %or&s %hi h %ere al%a!s logi all! and naturall! part and par el of the tellers7 normal fun tionsJ that from the beginning there ha$e been no separate items in the respondent Ban& plantilla for sorters or ountersJ that the tellers themsel$es alread! did the sorting and ounting hore as a regular feature and integral part of their duties 2p# /@' Re ords3J that through the Cpa&iusap7 of 5rturo Bor(al' the tellers %ere relie$ed of this tas& of ounting and sorting bills in fa$or of deaf"mutes %ithout reating ne% positions as there is no position either in the respondent or in an! other ban& in the Philippines %hi h deals %ith purel! ounting and sorting of bills in ban&ing operations#= Petitioners spe ified %hen ea h of them %as hired and dismissed' $i>8)@+ 9NAME O% PETITIONER D/.NOV -6 .5N /6 4# R.RN5RDO /.1 .S B.P /* 4 D.C /4 A# . *@ NOV /4 -# .*1 *# M5RIT... *@ NOV /4 &OR'PLACE Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Bel"5ir Intramuros :est Bel"5ir Intramuros D+.* !/0*1 *.1ITO O# 5IDON /.1VIR5 IO DI5M5NT. -4 OCT /4 6# D5VID P# P5SCH51 AA -* NOV /6 0# R5OH.5N *? 5PR *0 OCT .# D5VID /.5N /6 @# .H1 6 .* / .
O /. C5B5NDHCOS /4 -6 5HI /4 */# COCOF NOB.OHII5N /4 * 5HI /4 *@# 5DRI5N5 <# T5T1ONIH5RI /4 -.5N -6 <..<.1<IN /4 -.H1 *0 . -* NOV /4 Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros :est :est A <.11O /4 -.B -.TH O# M5RMO1.N5 M# T5B5OH.. P# 1IIHT5N' .B -.S /4 A 5HI /4 *0# ROB.F.B * <.5HI /4 *4# RO:.ORI.RT I# NOOR5 /4 *0 5HI /4 *?# MI15IROS O# 1.1O /4)A+ * 5HI /4 --# 1I1IB.<.HN ..1SO M# F5P5R /4 A 5HI /4 **# 51./# I.B 4* .Q I# CORPHP /4 *0 5HI /4 *-# RON51D M# D.B A <.ND5 C5TIMBHH5N /4 *0 5HI /4 -*# ROB.B -.# DOR.B ? S.<.5HI /4 -.B *0 <.H1 /4 *A# IG.RT M5RC.1OS R.B -.R# A/ */ .# C.5HI /4 *6# COR5PON C# D.PT *0 <.RO /4 -.5N /6 *.B *0 <.
B -6 <.B @ NOV -A OCT */ D.1 D.TH D# 5I.PT 4.S /*. .C /4 -/# CFNTHI5 D.-4# .T C.CI1I5 C5NOP5 .CSON /* *.HN *0 OCT ? S. NOV /4 44# P.C /4 4.S /.# 15NI R# CORT. V. 5HI /4 46# 5RI.1 B# CONC.1 M5M5H5I /*.H1 /.RN5D.PCION /. D. 6 <.C -? .OS. NOV /4 -@# M.15 /* 4 NOV /4 -A# B. *0 .# S51.RIO M5F /4 4.P AA *. *.<.B /6 4-# DINDO V51.T5 I# MONT.1 PI15R /4 -6 5HI /4 40# M5RI5R.1ODF V# IRH. NOV /4 -0# VIO1.B /6 4?# TH. *@ NOV /4 :est :est Intramuros Intramuros :est :est Bel"5ir Bel"5ir :est Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros Intramuros ? 5HI A M5F .N5ID5 M5T5 /4 *.B5STI5N /.OCT /4 -6# IS5B.NOV . <. 4 D.B -@ *.1M5 S.RO /. -@ D. ? <.C /4 4*# M5# IS5B.5N /6 -?# 51BINO T.R5 /.
5PR 4 . <. S# P5RDO /.+ The N1RC also de lared that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons %as not appli able' 9 onsidering the pre$ailing ir umstan esLmilieu of the ase#= I.M5R 6 5PR -A 5PR 5s earlier noted' the labor arbiter and' on appeal' the N1RC ruled against herein petitioners# Hen e' this re ourse to this Court#)/+ T)* Rul/34 o5 .1IP5B.C /4 6*# . is not ontrolling herein# :e gi$e due reden e to the on lusion that omplainants %ere hired as an a ommodation to )the+ re ommendation of i$i oriented personalities %hose emplo!ment)s+ %ere o$ered b! EEE .OCT /4 4/# ROP5ID5 P5SCH51 A/ -/ OCT /4 6.)* NLRC In affirming the ruling of the labor arbiter that herein petitioners ould not be deemed regular emplo!ees under 5rti le -A..HN *.NTHR5 /.TT.# PINGF B51O1O5 /* .5N.TH V.B /6 )SIC+ 6-# IR5C. *.C /4 4A# .u*.S /@ D..4@# M5# .RV5NT. of the 1abor Code' as amended' Respondent Commission ratio inated as follo%s8 9:e agree that 5rt# -A.HN -4 5PR -.# Hen e' as orre tl! held b! the 1abor 5rbiter a quo' the terms of the ontra t shall be the la% bet%een the parties#= )*. C.5NNI.. . R5MI1 /. *4 M5R /6 64# RICO TIMOS5 /4 -A OCT /4= :est Intramuros Bel"5ir :est :est :est Intramuros ? .D.mplo!ment Contra t)s+ %ith spe ial pro$isions on duration of ontra t as spe ified under 5rt# A.
and to bar them from be oming regular emplo!ees# . Cou0.*07 Propriety of Certiorari Respondent <ar .u*7 Are Petitioners Regular Employees? Petitioners maintain that the! should be onsidered regular emplo!ees' be ause their tas& as mone! sorters and ounters %as ne essar! and desirable to the business of respondent ban&# The! further allege that their ontra ts ser$ed merel! to pre lude the appli ation of 5rti le -A.6..In their Memorandum' petitioners ite the follo%ing grounds in support of their ause8 9I# The Honorable Commission ommitted gra$e abuse of dis retion in holding that the petitioners " mone! sorters and ounters %or&ing in a ban& " %ere not regular emplo!ees# 9II# The Honorable Commission ommitted gra$e abuse of dis retion in holding that the emplo!ment ontra ts signed and rene%ed b! the petitioners " %hi h pro$ide for a period of siE 2?3 months " %ere $alid# 9III# The Honorable Commission ommitted gra$e abuse of dis retion in not appl!ing the pro$isions of the Magna Carta for the Disabled 2Republi 5 t No# @-@@3' on pros ription against dis rimination against disabled persons#= )**+ In the main' the Court %ill resol$e %hether petitioners ha$e be ome regular emplo!ees# T)/. Rul/34 The petition is meritorious# Ho%e$er' onl! the emplo!ees' %ho %or&ed for more than siE months and %hose ontra ts %ere rene%ed are deemed regular# Hen e' their dismissal from emplo!ment %as illegal# P0*l/2/3+0y M+.ast Ban& and Trust Compan! argues that a re$ie% of the findings of fa ts of the N1RC is not allo%ed in a petition for ertiorari# Spe ifi all!' it maintains that the Court annot pass upon the findings of publi respondents that petitioners %ere not regular emplo!ees# True' the Court' as a rule' does not re$ie% the fa tual findings of publi respondents in a certiorari pro eeding# In resol$ing %hether the petitioners ha$e be ome regular emplo!ees' %e shall not hange the fa ts found b! the publi respondent# Our tas& is merel! to determine %hether the N1RC ommitted gra$e abuse of dis retion in appl!ing the la% to the established fa ts' as abo$e"quoted from the assailed De ision# M+/3 I..
# . of the 1abor Code# Pri$ate respondent ontends that it ne$er soli ited the ser$i es of petitioners' %hose emplo!ment %as merel! an 9a ommodation= in response to the requests of go$ernment offi ials and i$i " minded iti>ens# The! %ere told from the start' 9%ith the assistan e of go$ernment representati$es'= that the! ould not be ome regular emplo!ees be ause there %ere no plantilla positions for 9mone! sorters'= %hose tas& used to be performed b! tellers# Their ontra ts %ere rene%ed se$eral times' not be ause of need 9but merel! for humanitarian reasons#= Respondent submits that 9as of the present' the Cspe ial position7 that %as reated for the petitioners no longer eEist)s+ in pri$ate respondent )ban&+' after the latter had de ided not to rene% an!more their spe ial emplo!ment ontra ts#= 5t the outset' let it be &no%n that this Court appre iates the nobilit! of pri$ate respondent7s effort to pro$ide emplo!ment to ph!si all! impaired indi$iduals and to ma&e them more produ ti$e members of so iet!# Ho%e$er' %e annot allo% it to elude the legal onsequen es of that effort' simpl! be ause it no% deems their emplo!ment irrele$ant# The fa ts' $ie%ed in light of the 1abor Code and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons' indubitabl! sho% that the petitioners' eE ept siEteen of them' should be deemed regular emplo!ees# 5s su h' the! ha$e a quired legal rights that this Court is dut!"bound to prote t and uphold' not as a matter of ompassion but as a onsequen e of la% and (usti e# The uniform emplo!ment ontra ts of the petitioners stipulated that the! shall be trained for a period of one month' after %hi h the emplo!er shall determine %hether or not the! should be allo%ed to finish the ?"month term of the ontra t# <urthermore' the emplo!er ma! terminate the ontra t at an! time for a (ust and reasonable ause# Hnless rene%ed in %riting b! the emplo!er' the ontra t shall automati all! eEpire at the end of the term# 5 ording to pri$ate respondent' the emplo!ment ontra ts %ere prepared in a ordan e %ith 5rti le A. of the 1abor Code' %hi h pro$ides8 95RT# A.Pri$ate respondent' on the other hand' submits that petitioners %ere hired onl! as 9spe ial %or&ers and should not in an! %a! be onsidered as part of the regular omplement of the Ban&#=)*-+ Rather' the! %ere 9spe ial= %or&ers under 5rti le A.mplo!ment agreement# N 5n! emplo!er %ho emplo!s handi apped %or&ers shall enter into an emplo!ment agreement %ith them' %hi h agreement shall in lude8 2a3 The names and addresses of the handi apped %or&ers to be emplo!edJ 2b3 The rate to be paid the handi apped %or&ers %hi h shall be not less than se$ent! fi$e 2@0M3 per ent of the appli able legal minimum %ageJ 2 3 The duration of emplo!ment periodJ and 2d3 The %or& to be performed b! handi apped %or&ers# The emplo!ment agreement shall be sub(e t to inspe tion b! the Se retar! of 1abor or his dul! authori>ed representati$es#= .
NLRC')*6+ in %hi h this Court held8 .The stipulations in the emplo!ment ontra ts indubitabl! onform %ith the afore ited pro$ision# Su eeding e$ents and the ena tment of R5 No# @-@@ 2the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons3')*4+ ho%e$er' (ustif! the appli ation of 5rti le -A.# Sin e the Magna Carta a ords them the rights of qualified able"bodied persons' the! are thus o$ered b! 5rti le -A.mplo!ment# "" The pro$isions of %ritten agreement to the ontrar! not%ithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties' an emplo!ment shall be deemed to be regular %here the emplo!ee has been engaged to perform a ti$ities %hi h are usuall! ne essar! or desirable in the usual business or trade of the emplo!er' eE ept %here the emplo!ment has been fiEed for a spe ifi pro(e t or underta&ing the ompletion or termination of %hi h has been determined at the time of the engagement of the emplo!ee or %here the %or& or ser$i es to be performed is seasonal in nature and the emplo!ment is for the duration of the season# 95n emplo!ment shall be deemed to be asual if it is not o$ered b! the pre eding paragraph8 Pro$ided' That' an! emplo!ee %ho has rendered at least one !ear of ser$i e' %hether su h ser$i e is ontinuous or bro&en' shall be onsidered as regular emplo!ee %ith respe t to the a ti$it! in %hi h he is emplo!ed and his emplo!ment shall ontinue %hile su h a ti$it! eEists#= The test of %hether an emplo!ee is regular %as laid do%n in De Leon v. of the 1abor Code' %hi h pro$ides8 95RT# -A.# Regular and Casual . of the 1abor Code# Respondent ban& entered into the aforesaid ontra t %ith a total of 0? handi apped %or&ers and rene%ed the ontra ts of 4@ of them# In fa t' t%o of them %or&ed from */AA to *//4# Veril!' the rene%al of the ontra ts of the handi apped %or&ers and the hiring of others lead to the on lusion that their tas&s %ere benefi ial and ne essar! to the ban&# More important' these fa ts sho% that the! %ere qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions# In other %ords' their disabilit! did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tas&s assigned to them# In this light' the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled emplo!ee should be gi$en the same terms and onditions of emplo!ment as a qualified able" bodied person# Se tion 0 of the Magna Carta pro$ides8 9Se tion 0# Equal Opportunity for Employment#RNo disabled person shall be denied a ess to opportunities for suitable emplo!ment# 5 qualified disabled emplo!ee shall be sub(e t to the same terms and onditions of emplo!ment and the same ompensation' pri$ileges' benefits' fringe benefits' in enti$es or allo%an es as a qualified able bodied person#= The fa t that the emplo!ees %ere qualified disabled persons ne essaril! remo$es the emplo!ment ontra ts from the ambit of 5rti le A.
+ Be ause the other siEteen %or&ed onl! for siE months' the! are not deemed regular emplo!ees and hen e not entitled to the same benefits# Applicability of the B0*3. Ruling Respondent ban&' iting Brent School v.# Da$id' Da$id P# Pas ual' Raquel .li>abeth Ventura and Ira e S# Pardo# 5s held b! the Court' 95rti les -A.stiller' 5lbert Hallare' .r#' 1ilibeth O# Marmole(o' .dmund M# Corte>' . and -A* of the 1abor Code put an end to the perni ious pra ti e of ma&ing permanent asuals of our lo%l! emplo!ees b! the simple eEpedient of eEtending to them probationar! appointments' ad infinitum#=)*0+ The ontra t signed b! petitioners is a&in to a probationar! emplo!ment' during %hi h the ban& determined the emplo!ees7 fitness for the (ob# :hen the ban& rene%ed the ontra t after the lapse of the siE"month probationar! period' the emplo!ees thereb! be ame regular emplo!ees# )*?+ No emplo!er is allo%ed to determine indefinitel! the fitness of its emplo!ees# 5s regular emplo!ees' the t%ent!"se$en petitioners are entitled to se urit! of tenureJ that is' their ser$i es ma! be terminated onl! for a (ust or authori>ed ause# Be ause respondent failed to sho% su h ause')*@+ these t%ent!"se$en petitioners are deemed illegall! dismissed and therefore entitled to ba & %ages and reinstatement %ithout loss of seniorit! rights and other pri$ileges# )*A+ Considering the allegation of respondent that the (ob of mone! sorting is no longer a$ailable be ause it has been assigned ba & to the tellers to %hom it originall! belonged' )*/+ petitioners are hereb! a%arded separation pa! in lieu of reinstatement#)-.# Sales' Isabel Mamauag' Violeta I# Montes' 5lbino Te son' Melod! V# Iruela' Bernadeth D# 5gero' C!nthia de Vera' 1ani R# Corte>' Ma# Isabel B# Con ep ion' Margaret Ce ilia Cano>a' Thelma Sebastian' Ma# . Zamora)-*+ in %hi h the Court upheld the $alidit! of an emplo!ment ontra t %ith a fiEed term' argues that the parties entered into the ontra t on .l$ira Io Diamante' Rebe a .oselito O# 5gdon' Ieorge P# 1igutan .9The primar! standard' therefore' of determining regular emplo!ment is the reasonable onne tion bet%een the parti ular a ti$it! performed b! the emplo!ee in relation to the usual trade or business of the emplo!er# The test is %hether the former is usuall! ne essar! or desirable in the usual business or trade of the emplo!er# The onne tion an be determined b! onsidering the nature of the %or& performed and its relation to the s heme of the parti ular business or trade in its entiret!# 5lso if the emplo!ee has been performing the (ob for at least one !ear' e$en if the performan e is not ontinuous and merel! intermittent' the la% deems repeated and ontinuing need for its performan e as suffi ient e$iden e of the ne essit! if not indispensabilit! of that a ti$it! to the business# Hen e' the emplo!ment is onsidered regular' but onl! %ith respe t to su h a ti$it!' and %hile su h a ti$it! eEists#= :ithout a doubt' the tas& of ounting and sorting bills is ne essar! and desirable to the business of respondent ban&# :ith the eE eption of siEteen of them' petitioners performed these tas&s for more than siE months# Thus' the follo%ing t%ent!"se$en petitioners should be deemed regular emplo!ees8 Marites Bernardo' .eanette Cer$antes' .eannie Ramil' Ro>aida Pas ual' Pin&! Baloloa' .ose .
.. does not appl! be ause petitioners are qualified for their positions# The $alidation of the limit imposed on their ontra ts' imposed b! reason of their disabilit!' %as a glaring instan e of the $er! mis hief sought to be addressed b! the ne% la%# Moreo$er' it must be emphasi>ed that a ontra t of emplo!ment is impressed %ith publi interest#)--+ Pro$isions of appli able statutes are deemed %ritten into the ontra t' and the 9parties are not at libert! to insulate themsel$es and their relationships from the impa t of labor la%s and regulations b! simpl! ontra ting %ith ea h other#= )-4+ Clearl!' the agreement of the parties regarding the period of emplo!ment annot pre$ail o$er the pro$isions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons' %hi h mandate that petitioners must be treated as qualified able"bodied emplo!ees# Respondent7s reason for terminating the emplo!ment of petitioners is instru ti$e# Be ause the Bang&o Sentral ng Pilipinas 2BSP3 required that ash in the ban& be turned o$er to the BSP during business hours from A8.equal footing# It adds that the petitioners had in fa t an ad$antage' be ause the! %ere ba &ed b! then DS:D Se retar! Mita Pardo de Ta$era and Representati$e 5rturo Bor(al# :e are not persuaded# The term limit in the ontra t %as premised on the fa t that the petitioners %ere disabled' and that the ban& had to determine their fitness for the position# Indeed' its $alidit! is based on 5rti le A.. of the 1abor Code# But as noted earlier' petitioners pro$ed themsel$es to be qualified disabled persons %ho' under the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons' are entitled to terms and onditions of emplo!ment en(o!ed b! qualified able" bodied indi$idualsJ hen e' 5rti le A. NLRC' )-0+ the Court held that 9the determination of %hether emplo!ment is asual or regular does not depend on the %ill or %ord of the emplo!er' and the pro edure of hiring E E E but on the nature of the a ti$ities performed b! the emplo!ee' and to some eEtent' the length of performan e and its ontinued eEisten e#= Pri$ate respondent argues that the petitioners %ere informed from the start that the! ould not be ome regular emplo!ees# In fa t' the ban& adds' the! agreed %ith the stipulation in the ontra t regarding this point# Still' %e are not persuaded# The %ell"settled rule is that the hara ter of emplo!ment is determined not b! stipulations in the ontra t' but b! the nature of . a#m# to 08.*1 8y R*. C/.quall! una$ailing are pri$ate respondent7s arguments that it did not go out of its %a! to re ruit petitioners' and that its plantilla did not ontain their positions# InL.9o31*3. Datu v. Respondent argues that petitioners %ere merel! 9a ommodated= emplo!ees# This fa t does not hange the nature of their emplo!ment# 5s earlier noted' an emplo!ee is regular be ause of the nature of %or& and the length of ser$i e' not be ause of the mode or e$en the reason for hiring them# . p#m#' respondent resorted to nighttime sorting and ounting of mone!# Thus' it reasons that this tas& 9 ould not be done b! deaf mutes be ause of their ph!si al limitations as it is $er! ris&! for them to tra$el at night#= )-6+ :e find no basis for this argument# Tra$elling at night in$ol$es ris&s to handi apped and able"bodied persons ali&e# This eE use annot (ustif! the termination of their emplo!ment# O.)*0 G0ou31.
oselito O# 5gdon' Ieorge P# 1igutan . %as empla ed in our statute boo&s to pre$ent the ir um$ention of the emplo!ee7s right to be se ure in his tenure b! indis riminatel! and ompletel! ruling out all %ritten and oral agreements in onsistent %ith the on ept of regular emplo!ment defined therein# :here an emplo!ee has been engaged to perform a ti$ities %hi h are usuall! ne essar! or desirable in the usual business of the emplo!er' su h emplo!ee is deemed a regular emplo!ee and is entitled to se urit! of tenure not%ithstanding the ontrar! pro$isions of his ontra t of emplo!ment# 9E E E EEE EEE 95t this (un ture' the leading ase of Brent School! "nc. NLRC8)-@+ 95rti le -A. Zamora pro$es instru ti$e# 5s reaffirmed in subsequent ases' this Court has upheld the legalit! of fiEed"term emplo!ment# It ruled that the de isi$e determinant in Cterm emplo!ment7 should not be the a ti$ities that the emplo!ee is alled upon to perform but the da! ertain agreed upon the parties for the ommen ement and termination of their emplo!ment relationship# But this Court %ent on to sa! that %here from the ir umstan es it is apparent that the periods ha$e been imposed to pre lude a quisition of tenurial se urit! b! the emplo!ee' the! should be stru & do%n or disregarded as ontrar! to publi poli ! and morals#= In rendering this De ision' the Court emphasi>es not onl! the onstitutional bias in fa$or of the %or&ing lass' but also the on ern of the State for the plight of the disabled# The noble ob(e ti$es of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merel! on harit! or a ommodation' but on (usti e and the equal treatment of qualified persons' disabled or not# In the present ase' the handi ap of petitioners 2deaf"mutes3 is not a hindran e to their %or&# The eloquent proof of this statement is the repeated rene%al of their emplo!ment ontra ts# :h! then should the! be dismissed' simpl! be ause the! are ph!si all! impairedS The Court belie$es' that' after sho%ing their fitness for the %or& assigned to them' the! should be treated and granted the same rights li&e an! other regular emplo!ees# In this light' %e note the Offi e of the Soli itor Ieneral7s pra!er (oining the petitioners7 ause#)-A+ &!ERE%ORE' premises onsidered' the Petition is hereb! #R$N ED# The .l$ira Io Diamante' Rebe a .dmund M# Corte>' .stiller' 5lbert Hallare' .r#' 1ilibeth O# Marmole(o' .ast Ban& and Trust Compan! is hereb! ORDERED to pa! ba & %ages and separation pa! to ea h of the follo%ing t%ent!"se$en 2-@3 petitioners' namel!' Marites Bernardo' .# Sales' Isabel Mamauag' Violeta I# Montes' 5lbino Te son' Melod! V# Iruela' Bernadeth D# 5gero' C!nthia de Vera' 1ani R# Corte>' Ma# Isabel B# .' *//0 De ision and the 5ugust 6' *//0 Resolution of the N1RC areRE%ERSED and SE $S"DE# Respondent <ar .ose .une -. v.the %or& performed#)-?+ Other%ise' no emplo!ee an be ome regular b! the simple eEpedient of in orporating this ondition in the ontra t of emplo!ment# In this light' %e iterate our ruling in Romares v.# Da$id' Da$id P# Pas ual' Raquel .
hague Street from @ am to **pm The Chairman of the National Traffi Commission on .ul! *@' */6.= Do-. D.' resol$ed to re ommend to the Dire tor of the Publi :or&s and to the Se retar! of Publi :or&s and Communi ations that animal"dra%n $ehi les be prohibited from passing along the follo%ing for a period of one !ear from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffi 8 *3 Rosario Street eEtending from Pla>a Calderon de la Bar a to DasmariTas Street from @84. re ommended to the Dire tor of Publi :or&s %ith the appro$al of the Se retar! of Publi :or&s the adoption of thethemeasure proposed in the resolution aforementioned in pursuan e of the pro$isions of theCo mmon%ealth 5 t No# 06A %hi h authori>es said Dire tor %ith the appro$al from the Se retar! of the Publi :or&s and Communi ation to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and ontrol the use of and traffi on national roads# On 5ugust -' */6. ./-* 15HR.7<== D*-*28*0 2. 19..li>abeth Ventura and Ira e S# Pardo# The N1RC is hereb! dire ted to ompute the eEa t amount due ea h of said emplo!ees' pursuant to eEisting la%s and regulations' %ithin fifteen da!s from the finalit! of this De ision# No osts# SO ORDERED.ul! *A' */6.#8 %+-.0/3*7 So-/+l Ju. G.eannie Ramil' Ro>aida Pas ual' Pin&! Baloloa' . &ILLIAMS..1' .. ET AL. No. pm and from *84. pm to 04. pmJ and -3 along Ri>al 5$enue eEtending from the railroad rossing at 5ntipolo Street to .5m to *-84.R. A.7 The National Traffi Commission' in its resolution of .eanette Cer$antes' .Con ep ion' Margaret Ce ilia Cano>a' Thelma Sebastian' Ma# .' the Dire tor re ommended to the Se retar! the appro$al of the re ommendations made b! the Chairman of the National Traffi Commission %ith modifi ations# The Se retar! of Publi :or&s appro$ed the re ommendations on 5ugust . MA$IMO CALALANG :.
.*.'*/6.# The Ma!or of Manila and the 5 ting Chief of Poli e of Manila ha$e enfor ed and aused to be enfor ed the rules and regulation# 5s a onsequen e' all animal"dra%n $ehi les are not allo%ed to pass and pi & up passengers in the pla es abo$e mentioned to the detriment not onl! of their o%ners but of the riding publi as %ell# I.8 *3 :hether the rules and regulations promulgated b! the respondents pursuant to the pro$isions of Common%ealth 5 t NO# 06A onstitute an unla%ful inferen e %ith legitimate business or trade and abridged the right to personal libert! and freedom of lo omotionS -3 :hether the rules and regulations omplained of infringe upon the onstitutional pre ept regarding the promotion of so ial (usti e to insure the %ell"being and e onomi se urit! of all the peopleS !*l17 *3 No# The promulgation of the 5 t aims to promote safe transit upon and a$oid obstru tions on national roads in the interest and on$enien e of the publi # In ena ting said la%' the National 5ssembl! %as prompted b! onsiderations of publi on$enien e and %elfare# It %as inspired b! the desire to relie$e ongestion of traffi ' %hi h is a mena e to the publi safet!# Publi %elfare lies at the bottom of the promulgation of the said la% and the state in order to promote the general %elfare ma! interfere %ith personal libert!' %ith propert!' and %ith business and o upations# Persons and propert! ma! be sub(e t to all &inds of restraints and burdens in order to se ure the general omfort' health' and prosperit! of the State# To this fundamental aims of the go$ernment' the rights of the indi$idual are subordinated# 1ibert! is a blessing %hi h should not be made to pre$ail o$er authorit! be ause so iet! %ill fall into anar h!# Neither should authorit! be made to pre$ail o$er libert! be ause then the indi$idual %ill fall into sla$er!# The paradoE lies in the fa t that the apparent urtailment of libert! is pre isel! the $er! means of insuring its preser$ing# -3 No# So ial (usti e is 9neither ommunism' nor despotism' nor atomism' nor anar h!'= but the humani>ation of la%s and the equali>ation of so ial and e onomi for es b! the State so that (usti e in its rational and ob(e ti$el! se ular on eption ma! at least be approEimated# So ial (usti e means the promotion of the %elfare of all the people' the adoption b! the Io$ernment of measures al ulated to insure e onomi stabilit! of all the ompetent elements of so iet!' through the maintenan e of a proper e onomi and so ial equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the ommunit!' onstitutionall!' through the adoption of measures legall! .u*.
CULTURE AND SPORTS. !s.S. #t offers a two. petitioner.uiren issued petitioner the summer permit for 19=A based on the pre!iously stated humanitarian reason but sub1ect to the condition that petitioner should not enroll students for the first semester of SB 19=A. NOLASCO III. on 11 March 19=A the D"CS issued petitioner a renewal permit for SB 19=9.T. Thereafter the application was returned to Director Modesta -o. series of 19<9. #2C. Director -o.C6$2T M$. 7%MMS#8. /or se!eral times prior to 19=9 respondent Department of "ducation.8.19=A.(ustifiable' or eEtra" onstitutionall!' through the eEer ise of po%ers underl!ing the eEisten e of all go$ernments on the time"honored prin iples of salus populi estsuprema leE# So ial (usti e must be founded on the re ognition of the ne essit! of interdependen e among di$ers and di$erse units of a so iet! and of the prote tion that should be equall! and e$enl! eEtended to all groups as a ombined for e in our so ial and e onomi life' onsistent %ith the fundamental and paramount ob(e ti$e of the state of promoting health' omfort and quiet of all persons' and of bringing about 9the greatest good to the greatest number#= . 1995 PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL.epublic of the %hilippines SUPREME COURT Manila "2 -$2C G.uests for renewal email@example.com of the D"CS for e!aluation and decision pursuant to the authority delegated to the . JR. RENATO CORONA. No. petitioner applied for a summer permit for 19=A which the D"CS fa!orably indorsed to the Minister of "ducation in consideration of the graduating students for summer. was established in Manila in 199: to train and produce competent marine officers.: %6#(#%%#2" M". 112844 June 2.M. EDELMIRO AMANTE.8 and a four. COURT O' APPEALS.egions under Department &rder 2o. respondents.R. 6owe!er. Culture and Sports 7D"CS8 disappro!ed petitioner?s re. CC. J. THE O''ICE O' THE E(ECUTI)E SECRETAR*..e DEPARTMENT O' EDUCATION. -ut we are here concerned only with the main school in Manila. #n 19<= it established a branch in Talon. INC.#2" SC6&&(.year course in Marine "ngineering 7$.. (as %i>as.19=< until a permit therefor was granted and that the enrollment list for the summer term be submitted immediately. (ater. +n$ #. e! e"en#e$ %& JUAN O.year course in Marine Transportation 7-. .". Metro Manila.M. -ELLOSILLO.
2$/(E. $ccordingly.19=A. Dal!e*.uiren?s letter dated 9 July 19=A why no drastic action should be ta'en against it but said communication was ne!er answeredH and.%$M# sur!ey.uirements in 2autical "ngineering. 7b8 the remaining students should be allowed to transfer to other authori*ed schools. corner .$gency Technical Committee 7#$TC&M8 recommended renewal of permits for the maritime courses offered by petitioner pro!ided that a de!elopment plan for the impro!ement of its buildings classrooms. informed petitioner of the aforementioned courses of action and directed immediate implementation thereof..uiren recommended that petitioner?s summer permit be re!o'ed and that the school be closed effecti!e SB 19=A.uirements for graduation and sub1ect to prior issuance of Special &rderH and. Cru*. #n a memorandum . Despite lac' of permit. ###..uiren. #t found petitioner deficient in terms of the minimum re. 6owe!er. Iuisumbing appro!ed the following courses of action for petitionerG 7a8 the students in the two courses who were graduating for SB 19=A. laboratory rooms.19=<H 7b8 se!eral communications were sent to petitioner?s head telling him not to operate without permit and to e plain within se!enty. the D"CS through Director -o.D"CS Technical %anel for Maritime "ducation 7T%M"8 affirmed the findings of the D"CS. &n C= &ctober 19== petitioner sent a letter to Director Di*on applying for permit@recognition to conduct classes for the two 7C8 maritime courses retroacti!e from summer of 19=< up to SB 19==. Manila. way below the D"CS re. petitioner scored only 3C points out of a possible 1. Sta.uirements. &n 9 $pril 19=< the D"CS #nter.two 7<C8 hours from receipt of Director -o.uent inspection of petitioner?s premises by the -ureau of 6igher "ducation. petitioner continued to enroll students and offer courses in Marine "ngineering and Marine Transportation for SB 19=<. which refers to the policies and standards for Maritime "ducation %lan. in a D"CS. This prompted the D"CS through Director 6ernando Di*on to write petitioner on ) $ugust 19== directing it not to operate without permit and in!iting its attention to the pro!isions of the %ri!ate School (aw 1 as reiterated in the "ducation $ct of 19=C 2 which prohibits operation of unauthori*ed firstname.lastname@example.org as pro!ided in D"CS &rder 2o.19=< on the ground thatG 7a8 petitioner did not ha!e a renewal permit@recognition for SB 19=A.19==. Dal!e* re. in a 3rd #ndorsement dated C3 September 19=A the D"CS through then Minister (ourdes . Subse. series of 19=<.:CA points for re. concerning the issuance of summer permit to petitioner and of its holding of classes for courses not recogni*ed by the Do!ernment.19==. a director of said -ureau recommended renewal of petitioner?s permit. 19=9 and informing him of its transfer to the 9th /loor of the .FME.i*al $!enue and Soler St. #n response. president of petitioner?s /aculty $ssociation.%$M# sur!ey conducted by the D"CS technical staff in 19==.uested that the matter be loo'ed into as well as the possible re!ocation of petitioner?s authority due to persistent !iolation of the orders of the D"CS.19=< would be allowed to graduate e!en without permit for said courses as a special case pro!ided that they completed the re. &n the basis of the fa!orable report of a super!isor of the -ureau of 6igher "ducation who !isited the premises of petitioner on 1) 2o!ember 19==.Sometime in 19=A the D"CS recei!ed a complaint from /eli berto -. library offices and other rooms be formulated and implemented before the start of school year 19=<. 7c8 petitioner did not correct the deficiencies indicated in the renewal permit for 19=9. and only C:< points out of 9:9 points in Marine "ngineering. #n a letter dated 3: September 19=A Director -o.epublic Supermar'et -uilding.
The school has not ac.uired its own school site and building. &n C3 September 19=A. closure order will be issued.uirements. Therefore. Dradual phasing out of the -SMT 2autical Studies and $ssociate in Marine "ngineering programs. ). #f the school can come up with the D"CS minimum standard within the phasing out period. 3. suspension order may be lifted. 3. The said indorsement letter also pro!ided humanitarian decision 7reasonL8 which granted permit to %MMS . The %MMS administration may be gi!en a last chance to put up at least A:J of the minimum standard e.=9 can be granted. D"CS higher authorities shall decide whether the graduating students for the second semester 19==. 2o new and old students will be allowed to enroll during summer of 19=9 and the subse.March 19=98. no new enrollees should be accepted anymore for the 1st year -SMT 2autical Studies and $M" starting 1st semester of school year 19=9. Talon. the Secretary of "ducation.uent semesters pending issuance of a permit. %MMS.uirements. 3. it set forth the following recommendationsG 1. 6owe!er.uipment for -SMT 2autical Studies and $M" programs. C.dated 19 January 19=9 addressed to D"CS Director 2ilo .=9 shall be held in abeyance pending compliance of at least A:J of the re. has inade. Manila.uipment for a period of about two months 7January. then submitted a report dated 1= $pril 19=9 with the following new recommendations K 1.osas.inspection sometime the first wee' of $pril to monitor the progress of the re. 19==.19== to 19==. The present school campus is not conduci!e for training and is found to be !ery limited in space so that there is difficulty for school de!elopment and e pansion. based on these considerations K 1. 2o special permit for the -SMT 2autical Studies and $M" courses should be granted as a special case.==. $s recommended. Ender this scheme. The D"CS with T%M" will conduct a re. . C.=9 will be allowed to graduate and a retroacti!e school permit for the school years 19=<.9:. (as %i>as. #f the school fails to meet the D"CS minimum standard at the end of the phasing out period. ). 9.uate training facilities and e. during the phasing out period students may be allowed to graduate under %MMS. C. issuance of a school permit for 19=<. Culture and Sports already issued a cease to operate order to the school head of %MMS. the T%M" Secretariat conducted a reinspection of petitioner?s premises.
C. The present location of the school is not conduci!e for learning. 6owe!er. de!elopment and impro!ement.uipment and training facilities since the January 19=9 inspection was made. it reiterated the recommendations it submitted to the D"CS -ureau of 6igher "ducation. 3.osas notified petitioner about the aforementioned report and the D"CS? decision thatG 1. of the #mplementing .as a special case. without prior go!ernment authori*ation and@or in !iolation of any of the terms and conditions of said permit or .uirements. $ cease to operate order was issued by Secretary (ourdes . 1.9:. The school site and building are not owned by the school but only leased with contract of renewal to be made annually. The school?s training e. The second year and third year students may be allowed to remain until they graduate. &n C May 19=9. e. 4 #n a letter dated C< $pril 19=9 Director . Iuisumbing sometime in 19=A. Talon. it being located on the 9th floor of a supermar'et in the downtown section of the city.ule 1. which order was !iolated by the school. The present location of the school does not warrant for e pansion.199: per letter of Director . (as %i>as. %art M. the T%M" Secretariat submitted another memorandum on its reinspection of petitioner?s premises made on C= $pril 19=9. 5 #n a letter dated 11 July 19=9 the D"CS through Secretary Iuisumbing informed petitioner that it had recei!ed reports that petitioner enrolled freshmen for its maritime programs which were ordered phased out effecti!e SB 19=9. 1ust to allow -SMT and $M" students to graduate and the remaining students were ad!ised to transfer to authori*ed@recogni*ed schools. the school may opt to transfer these students to %MMS.osas dated C9 May 19=9H called petitioner?s attention to the pro!ision of Sec.osas informed petitioner of the T%M" report and recommendations and in!ited it for a conference on C May 19=9 before any ma1or decision and action would be made. . The conflict between the employees and employer is a manifestation of mismanagement of school..uipment and instructional facilities are !ery far below the standards set by D"CS. 9. /or this reason. ).ules of the "ducation $ct of 19=C which ma'es it punishable and sub1ect to penalties the operation of a school through the conduct or offering of "ducational %rograms or Courses of Studies@Training. due to the following considerationsG 1. Such being the case. C. The -SMT 2autical Studies and $ssociate in Marine "ngineering courses be gradually phased out. the school shall no longer be allowed to accept 1st year students and new enrollees starting 1st semester of school year 19=9. ). -ased on its findings that no substantial impro!ement in terms of minimum re. in the letter dated C9 May 19=9 Director . (abor dispute occurred in 19=<.
uirements prescribed by the Department of "ducation. petitioner?s Manila campus is allowed to operate only the Cnd. 199:H and.out the maritime courses at %MMS. the inspection team reiterated its pre!ious recommendation to gradually phase out the maritime programs of petitioner?s Manila campus effecti!e SB 199:.out order was issued ha!en?t shown any significant impro!ement inspite of the fact that the %MMS had been gi!en reasonable period to comply with the minimum standard re. Cari>o. library offices and other rooms shall be formulated and implemented before the start of SB 19=<. / The phase. pro!ided.epublic . 7b8 #n 19==. that it had underta'en impro!ements in all of its facilities in compliance with D"CS re. that a de!elopment plan for the impro!ement of the buildings. 6owe!er.uested another inspection of its premises. 3rd and )th years of the authori*ed maritime programs which shall be gradually phased outH and.osas and then D"CS Secretary #sidro D. please be informed that this Department sees no reason for such action as the conditions obtaining in the school when the phase.uest was denied by the D"CS through Endersecretary -en1amin Tayabas in his letter of 1 June 199:. Conse.1991.19==. 2C.1991 and suggested that efforts be made towards the de!elopment of %MMS. 6owe!er. the D"CS.$gency Technical Committee 7#$TC&M8 recommended the renewal of permits of the maritime courses.uality.out order was reiterated in subse.Secretariat on = $ugust 19=9.uent letters dated 19 /ebruary 199: and 9 May 199: of Director .uently.uire ade.recognitionH directed that in accordance with the phase. Subse. the series of !isits made by the staff of the -6".uirements was due to the followingG that as early as C1 June 19=9 it filed a letter re. re!ealed that %MMS. re. $ccordingly.1<J for 2autical Studies and C=. Maritime "ducation courses are highly speciali*ed and re. which has a great potential of being a good Maritime School.uently. The letter reads K 0ith reference to your re. petitioner mo!ed for reconsideration stating that the finding that it had not complied with the minimum re. Culture and Sports. Manila.uest. it re. and members of the Technical %anel on Maritime "ducation re!ealed the following findingsG 7a8 &n $pril 9.uirements. petitioner only obtained a general rating of 31. petitioner mo!ed to reconsider the phase.uesting reconsideration of the letter dated C9 May 19=9 of Director .uest to rescind an order to phase.1991 and that no new freshman students be accepted beginning SB 199:. respecti!ely.out order in its letter of C1 May 199:.uired petitioner to comment on the reported unauthori*ed enrollment. then located at the 9th floor of the . which re.. classrooms. in a letter dated C9 September 19=9 the D"CS through Secretary Iuisumbing ordered petitioner to discontinue its Maritime program in the Manila campus effecti!e school year 199:.%$M# sur!ey conducted by technical persons. #n its letter to the D"CS dated CA July 19=9.uate training facilities and e.osasH that since there was no reply it belie!ed that the C9 May 19=9 order was reconsidered sub-silencio and that petitioner was allowed to enroll 1st year students for SB 19=9. #n this regard. %ursuant to petitioner?s re.uipment in order to ensure .out order. 19=< the #nter.93J for Marine "ngineering. laboratory rooms. another inspection of the Manila premises was conducted by the T%M". (as %i>as.
the maritime courses at the Manila campus would be fully phased. out.1993. So that by school year 199C.199:.uipment were found for the Maritime courses. Bou appealed for another chance and re.out the Maritime courses at %MMS. #t is therefore with regrets that this Department cannot rescind its order to phase.out order of our maritime programs in Manila campus. The findings re!ealed that your school obtained a general rating of 31. . to operate the maritime courses for SB 19=9.93J for Marine "ngineering.Supermar'et. 0 #t is suggested that %MMS concentrate its de!elopment plans in the (as %i>as Campus which has a great potential of being a good maritime school. Manila and the school is admonished not to accept incoming first year students starting school year 199:. Manila.out order.1<J for 2autical Studies and C=.1991.%$M# Sur!ey.199: despite the abo!e phase. 7d8 $s per agreement.:CA points for re.inspection was made and it showed that the school did not show any substantial impro!ement.affirmed the findings of the D"CS. Mery few e. Then on May C9. 19=9. 19=9 another re.uirements. on $pril C=. The %MMS has been pro!ided with the %olicies and Standards for Maritime "ducation and.uested. the series of inspection and e!aluation were 7sic8 done by technical persons who ha!e e pertise in the field of maritime education. petitioner appealed the matter to respondent &ffice of the %resident. . the lease on the premises is not a long term lease 7C years8.uests relati!e to these are not !alid. During the pendency of the appeal the D"CS thru Secretary Cari>o issued a Closure &rder dated C< $ugust 1991 K . 7e8 $nother e!aluation of your school was conducted by technical people on $ugust =. as re.uirements in the 2autical course and C:< out of 9:9 points for the Marina "ngineering course. 19=9. a condition which would deter the school from fully de!eloping the school site. as re!ealed by the foregoing facts. inspection before the opening of SB 19=9. Bou concurred with these findings in a dialogue with the Director of the -ureau of 6igher "ducation Secretariat. 6owe!er. the school site was described as not conduci!e for offering maritime program due to its limited area. . /urthermore. 2ot satisfied therewith. the re. 7c8 #n January of 19=9. obtained a general score of 3C out of 1. $bo!e all. the Department again allowed %MMS.uested for re. Therefore. Secretary (ourdes Iuisumbing issued the phase. the findings of the Secretariat for the Technical %anel for Maritime "ducation 7T%M"8 re. #t is needless to say that these findings are way below the D"CS re.
do not warrant the re!ersal of our pre!ious resolution.ule 1. ci!il and criminal proceedings against you and the other responsible officers of your school pursuant to Section A=. . /or your guidance and strict compliance. .uirements. . . Since 19=A.out order since 19=A. #t opined that K Mere alleged efforts to impro!e the facilities and e. the &ffice of the %resident found no cogent reason to set aside its pre!ious resolution.out order which was issued last September C=. ero copy of which is hereto attached for your information. %MMS# has been applying for a permit to offer maritime courses but has been in!ariably denied for failure to comply with the minimum re.. 1991. .uirements prescribed by D"CS.uirements prescribed for a school site. %etitioner anchored its motion on the proposition that since it had made substantial impro!ements on school e. otherwise this Department shall be constrained to institute the appropriate administrati!e. 2otwithstanding these denials. . . 199C. The transfer of the affected students shall be facilitated by the 2ational Capital . #n letters filed with the &ffice of the %resident dated C and 3 &ctober 199C petitioner alleged compliance with D"CS re.esolution dismissing petitioner?s appeal. that the phase. %etitioner mo!ed for reconsideration praying that the case be remanded to the D"CS for another ocular inspection and e!aluation of its alleged impro!ed facilities. Iuisumbing and further reiterated by the undersigned.#n !iew of the report which was confirmed by the e!aluation team from the 2ational Capital . dated May 9. that %hilippine Merchant Marine School 7%MMS8.out order of D"CS was based not only on %MMS#?s failure to pro!ide ade. 7 sic8 19=9 by former Secretary (ourdes . 9 #t found no plausible reason to disturb the action of the D"CS Secretary in the light of the conspicuous fact that petitioner had repeatedly failed to comply with the phase. 199:. C3C.uipments 7sic8 which were long due since 19=A.uate e. -atas %ambansa -lg. $fter another circumspect re!iew of the case. %MMS#?s adamant refusal to comply with the orders of the D"CS to phase out its unauthori*ed courses is sufficient ground to uphold the order appealed from. Manila. has been accepting freshman students of the maritime programs despite the phase. hereby orders Closure of your maritime programs of your school effective second semester school year 1991-199 .uipment and facilities there e isted no !alid ground to deny them a permit to offer maritime courses.uested that special orders be issued to its graduates for SB 1991.egional &ffice. 8 #n a (etter dated C) $ugust 199C petitioner sought reconsideration of the C< $ugust 1991 Closure &rder and at the same time re.egion in accordance with our Memorandum dated $ugust 1A. of the "ducation $ct of 19=C . &n 1: 2o!ember 199C the &ffice of the %resident through respondent " ecuti!e Secretary "delmiro $mante rendered a . the Department. #t bears stressing as the records may show. .egion D"CS . The letters were referred to the D"CS for consideration. Moreo!er. $part from these. the grounds ad!anced by petitioner ha!e already been passed upon by the D"CS. %MMS# continues to offer maritime courses and to admit freshmen students in clear !iolation of Section 1.uipment and facilities but also on %MMS#?s failure to comply with the standard re.
/or. appears to ha!e restated the report of the respondent D"CS.out and closure orders was not sufficiently disclosed. its letters dated C and 3 &ctober 199C which presented incontro!ertible proof that it had introduced substantial impro!ements on its facilities for the past two and a half years while its appeal was pending were not ta'en into account.out order on the ground that the same is not yet final and e ecutory is untenable.uisite prior authority of the D"CS.%MMS#?s refusal to comply with the phase.uirement of due process because the basis for affirming the D"CS phase. the D"CS denied petitioner the opportunity to correct such deficiencies.esolution still refused to ta'e into consideration petitioner?s compliance with the D"CS? re. The 1: 2o!ember 199C . there was no reason for %MMS# to offer maritime courses without the re. /urthermore. &n CA 2o!ember 1993 the motion for reconsideration %etitioner imputes error on respondent courtG 718 in not setting aside the . There was no authority to spea' of. 199C. 7C8 in implementing the closure orders which had not become final and e ecutory. .uirements. .esolution dated 1C January 1993 through respondent $ssistant " ecuti!e Secretary .$ C93. %etitioner?s latest attempt at impro!ing its facilities does not warrant a re!ersal of the phase.uest for issuance of a renewal permit. was denied. the basic problem remained as it still occupies the fifth floor of the 0illiam (iao building. meaning. 11 %etitioner assailed both resolutions of the &ffice of the %resident before respondent Court of $ppeals by way ofcertiorari.espondent Court of $ppeals brushed aside the allegations of petitioner since K NTOhe &ffice of the %resident. CA). .out may not be final and e ecutory. but that is not a !iolation of the Constitution and the . #t alleged that the resolutions failed to meet the constitutional re.ules of Court. %etitioner asse!erates that the D"CS denied its right to a hearing on the supposed deficiencies which allegedly 1ustified denial of its re.out order. 0hile said phase. in spite of the claim that it spent on impro!ements.out. in line with !lba Patio De Ma"ati vs# !lba Patio De Ma"ati $mployees !ssociation. in the resolution dated 2o!ember 1:.out and closure orders.esolution failed to sufficiently disclose the basis for affirmation of the D"CS? phase. 1C= SC.uestioned resolutions and orders of public respondents which were rendered without due process of law since 7a8 petitioner was not afforded the right to fully present its case and submit e!idence in support thereofH 7b8 public respondents did not consider the e!idence presented by petitionerH 7c8 public respondents? decisions ha!e no substantial e!idence to support themH 7d8 public respondents? decisions did not disclose the bases thereforH and. which is not conduci!e to learning and has a limited area for e pansion and de!elopment. thereby gra!ely abusing its discretion. #t issued resolutions strictly on the basis of the D"CS? representations which do not amount to substantial e!idence. The &ffice of the %resident totally ignored super!ening e!ents properly brought to its attention in the letters of petitioner dated C and 3 &ctober 199C. (i'ewise. 11 Thus the motion was denied in the . %MMS# possessed no !alid permit prior to the issuance of the phase. CA9 . 12 &n CC July 1993 the petition was dismissed.enato Corona. The D"CS orders were not final and e ecutory . 14 1. %etitioner did not !iolate the "ducation $ct of 199C because it was authori*ed to operate by !irtue of the pro!isional authorities issued by the D"CS. that it adopted as its own the D"CS? report. The 1C January 1993 .
.out and closure orders. Merily. pro!iding for a permit system. . the assertion of petitioner that it was depri!ed of its right to a hearing and any opportunity whatsoe!er to correct the alleged deficiencies readily collapses.inspection of its premises. -efore proceeding to resol!e the merits of this case. K . there are sufficient grounds to uphold the phase.uisite authori*ation from the D"CS and acceptance of freshman students in blatant !iolation of the latter?s orders and@or persistent warnings not to do so. 19) SC. and@or operation thereof in !iolation of the terms of recognition. C&M"("C. substantial impro!ements on school e. regional or national.operated schools. &peration of schools and educational programs without authori*ation. the demands of due process were sufficiently met 7(indo !. are hereby declared punishable !iolations sub1ect to the penalties pro!ided in this $ct. recognition of educational programs and@or operations is deemed granted simultaneously with establishment. teaching staff. we shall state briefly the concept regarding establishment of schools.uest for re. warned and gi!en se!eral opportunities to correct its deficiencies and to comply with pertinent orders and regulations. petitioner was duly notified.uality and therefore shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula. 18 /urthermore. %etitioner has gone all the way up to the &ffice of the %resident to see' a re!ersal of the phase. the &ffice of the %resident properly ignored 7in the sense that it did not find worthy of consideration8 the alleged super!ening e!ents. C= of the "ducation $ct of 19=C which pro!idesG Sec. 1/ Set against the records of the case. #n connection therewith.uirement on prior go!ernment authori*ation is pursuant to the State policy that educational programs and@or operations shall be of good . Secs.out and closure orders of the D"CS which were issued conformably with Sec.uipment and facilities during the pendency of the case before said &ffice because the impro!ements should ha!e been underta'en starting 19=A. 10 0e agree with the obser!ation of the &ffice of the Solicitor Deneral that K $s long as the parties were gi!en opportunity to be heard before 1udgment was rendered. . 15 The re.out and closure orders.$ C98. i#e#.out and closure orders were based not only on petitioner?s deficiencies as a maritime institute but also on its continued operation without the re. . physical plant and facilities and of administrati!e or management !iability. There is thus no reason to complain of lac' of opportunity to e plain its side as well as to comply with the alleged deficiencies.because petitioner challenged them and appropriately a!ailed itself of the remedies a!ailable to it under the law. defining therein who are .$ C<=8. C=. . it has been ruled that the opportunity to be heard is the essence of procedural due process and that any defect is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration 7Medenilla !. #n all other cases the rules and regulations go!erning recognition are prescribed and enforced by the D"CS. The earlier narration of facts clearly demonstrates that before the D"CS issued the phase. the phase. Ci!il Ser!ice Commission. Moreo!er. Punishable %iolation. #t should also be noted that petitioner herein repeatedly sought reconsideration of the !arious orders of respondent D"CS and its motions were duly considered by respondent D"CS to the e tent of allowing and granting its re. and pro!iding for related matters.ualified to apply. 19) SC. stating the conditions for the grant of recognition and for its cancellation and withdrawal. #n the case of go!ernment. whether local. A= and A9 of the same $ct pro!ide the penaltiesG . The educational operation of schools is sub1ect to prior authori*ation of the go!ernment and is effected by recognition. .
K The Minister 7Secretary8 of "ducation. e. however. C.esolution of the &ffice of the %resident sufficiently disclosed the basis for its affirmance of the D"CS? phase. or course. %$. Penalty Clause. shall be punished with a fine of not less than two thousand pesos 7%C.ule ###.:::. . Sec. teachers and employees. and@or in !iolation of any of the terms and conditions of the said permit or recognition. $ny person. A= and A9 read K Sec. . 9. that when the act is committed by a school corporation. Title ###. K $ny person upon con!iction for an act in !iolation of Section C=. The corresponding rules implementing Secs. .::8 nor more than ten thousand pesos 7%1:. or both. . or imprisonment for a ma imum period of two 7C8 years.ule. Contrary to the claim of petitioner. Enauthori*ed operation of a school. re!o'e or cancel a school?s authority to operate as an educational institution or to conduct educational programs or courses of studies@training. Chapter 3. therefore. or program or course of studies or component thereof. ha!e been declared punishable !iolations of the $ct.:::.ules. in the discretion of the court. or both.:::.uestioned resolutions of the &ffice of the %resident re!eals that they are based on the records of the case which constitute substantial e!idence.::8.ually liable. or any !iolation of the prescribed rules go!erning ad!ertisements or announcements of educational institutions. . 1.Sec. for any of the following causes.T ### of these . upon con!iction for an act constituting any of the foregoing punishable !iolations.ually liable.uate to support a conclusion. K The operation of a school. the school head together with the person or persons responsible for the offense or !iolation shall be e. pro!ing distinctly not only petitioner?s consistent failure to meet the D"CS? minimum standards for maritime institutes and correct its deficiencies but also its continued operation and offering of maritime courses despite the lac' of permit. Substantial e!idence has been defined to be such rele!ant e!idence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade. . vi'G . #f the act is committed by a school corporation. through the conduct or offering of educational programs or courses of studies@training without prior go!ernment authori*ation in the form of permit or recognition as pro!ided for in . . Sec. 1 under this . the Minister may withdraw. the 1: 2o!ember 199C . Enauthori*ed operation of a school. K 0ithout pre1udice to the interest of students. shall be punished with a fine of not less than Two Thousand %esos 7%C. the school head together with the person or persons responsible for the !iolation or offense shall be deemed e.::8 nor more than Ten Thousand %esos 7%1:. in the discretion of the CourtG Provided. and independently of the penalty imposed in Sec. . Punishable !cts and Penalties.:::. suspend. sub1ect to the penalties pro!ided therein. !dministrative &anction.::8 or imprisonment for a ma imum period of two 7C8 years. 19 $ perusal of the . A=. Culture and Sports may prescribe and impose such administrati!e sanction as he may deem reasonable and appropriate in the implementing rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this $ct for any of the following causes . or any component thereof . A9. !dministrative &anction.out and closure ordersG . .
There was no authority to spea' of. to re!iew the decisions and orders of the Secretary on the issue of whether or not an educational institution meets the norms and standards re. they are in a better position to pass 1udgment thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect. 0hat is more. any decision rendered by him should not and will not be sub1ect to re!iew and re!ersal by any court.out. %MMS# possessed no !alid permit prior to the issuance of the phase.$fter a careful study. or commands whate!er is needful to 'eep its e ercise within bounds. whiche!er may properly apply. #n the case at bench. . where a Court finds that there has been abuse of powers by the Secretary and conse. no Court has the power or prerogati!e to substitute its opinion for that of the Secretary. oppressi!ely. alter or re!erse the appealed order.esolutions of 1: 2o!ember 199C and 1C January 1993. $s correctly held by the &ffice of the %resident K . it is not the function of this Court nor any other court for that matter K . capriciously.out 7orders8 may not be final and e ecutory. 21 -y reason of the special 'nowledge and e pertise of administrati!e departments o!er matters falling under their 1urisdiction. &n this .uently nullifies and@or forbids such an abuse of power. there was no reason for %MMS# to offer maritime courses without.uired for permission to operate and to continue operating as such.uisite prior authority of the D"CS. if not finality. respondent Court of $ppeals did not err in sustaining the resolutions in . as to which it should not ordinarily substitute its own 1udgment for that of said office. . that the Secretary had acted with gra!e abuse of discretion. . Culture and Sports. we are constrained to resol!e that there e ists no sufficient 1ustification to modify. 0e find no plausible reason to disturb the action of the Secretary of "ducation. the re. more so in light of the conspicuous fact that %MMS has repeatedly failed to comply with the phase out order since 19=A. by the courts. or mandamus. the grounds ad!anced by %MMS ha!e already been passed upon.uestion. or had unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically en1oins as a duty. should still lea!e to the Secretary the ultimate determination of the issue of the satisfaction of fulfillment by an educational institution of the standards set down for its legitimate operation. 0hile said phase.uestion. and separately resol!ed by the office a (uo. absent any compelling reason to do otherwise. Culture and Sports has acted within the scope of powers granted him by law and the Constitution. $s long as it appears that he has done so. #ndeed. despotically or arbitrarily as to call for peremptory correction K or stated otherwise. . . 21 %etitioner?s persistent refusal to comply with the phase. 22 There being no gra!e abuse of discretion committed by respondents representing the &ffice of the %resident in issuing the . or e cluded another from the use or en1oyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled K it becomes the Court?s duty to rectify such action through the e traordinary remedies of certiorari. . prohibition. if it should be made to appear to the Court that those powers were in a case e ercised so whimsically. the Court. it is ob!iously not e pected that any Court would ha!e the competence to do so. &f course. The only authority reposed in the Courts on the matter is the determination of whether or not the Secretary of "ducation. Bet e!en in these e treme instances.out orders on the ground that the same were not yet final and e ecutory is untenable.
//.esolution of CA 2o!ember 1993. are tas"ed to protect and preserve. and seas polluted by human activities# 0o most of these agencies and their official complement.19-.6e< )#*# +os# 1. a place with a proud historic past. and the unabated improper disposal of garbage# !nd rightly so.e o 686n+2 9 :u22 #e. DEPARTMENT O' AGRICULTURE. !e#6#6one ".egional Trial Court 7...TC8 in #mus. DEPARTMENT O' EN)IRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. 'RITBIE TANG>IA. for the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself# 1ut amidst hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action. the voice of cynicism. oil spills. DEPARTMENT O' -UDGET AND MANAGEMENT. but now a dirty and slowly dying e2panse mainly because of the ab3ect official indifference of people and institutions that could have otherwise made a difference# '+4#": &n January C9." . SA-INIANO AL-ARRACIN. CONCERNED RESIDENTS O' MANILA -A*. is $//#. OPOSA. 'ELIMON SANTIAGUEL. rivers. 7". DINAH DELA PE@A. the destruction of forests and other critical habitats. respondents Concerned .6" 76"6#o " #o !2e+"e e+$ #. DEPARTMENT O' HEALTH. and protection of the Manila -ay. +n$ DEPARTMENT O' THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GO)ERNMENT.# o: #. December 1. the petition is D"2#"D. if not mitigating. is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment# !t the core of the case is the Manila 1ay. JR."/&. MANUEL SANTOS. ILAS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP. 'ATIMA AUITAIN.D". PAUL DENNIS AUINTERO. HANNI-AL AUGUSTUS -O-IS. if their trac" records are to be the norm# 0heir cavalier attitude towards solving. naysayers. by the nature of their respective offices or by direct statutory command."D.--. a spot for different contact recreation activities. 1999. DEPARTMENT O' PU-LIC =OR>S AND HIGH=A*S. rehabilitation. as a cause of climate change. SARAH JOELLE LINTAG. Ca!ite against se!eral go!ernment agencies. )ENICE SEGARRA. MA. DEPARTMENT O' EDUCATION. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay C. shores. MMDA v.e 4+"e 46#e$. the pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves. The . for so many decades in the past.uality of the Manila -ay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by . at the first instance. S& &.M"D. has of late gained the attention of the international community# Media have finally trained their sights on the ill effects of pollution. "2 -$2C 0he need to address environmental pollution.uestioned Decision of the Court of $ppeals dated CC July 1993. for the cleanup. the environmental pollution problem. CULTURE AND SPORTS. PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD. and procrastinators can still be heard# 0his case turns on government agencies and their officers who. as well as its . The complaint alleged that the water . +n$ JAIME AGUSTIN R. once brimming with marine life and. e"!on$en#". DONNA CALOBA.06".esidents of Manila -ay filed a complaint before the . (6e . METROPOLITAN MANILA DE)ELOPMENT AUTHORIT*. Costs against petitioner.e"#e C+%+23+ e4o55en$" . )ICTORIA LLENOS. e! e"en#e$ +n$ ?o6ne$ %& DI)INA ). our internal waters.
s'in. C::C. operate and maintain ade. To attain this.epublic $ct 2o.di!ing and other forms of contact recreation. #n their indi!idual causes of action. A9A98H 71:8 Ci!il Code pro!isions on nuisance and human relationsH 7118 The Trust Doctrine and the %rinciple of DuardianshipH and 71C8 #nternational (aw #nter alia. 19CH 798 The To ic and 6a*ardous 0astes (aw 7. coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay.TC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose. health. defendant. prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila -ay and submit to the .law. He2$: *egional 0rial Court4s 5rder to Clean 6p and *ehabilitate Manila 1ay &n September 13.classification to ma'e it fit for swimming. 7n particular8 Defendant M0SS is directed to install. I""ue": a8 0hether or not pertinent pro!isions of the "n!ironment Code 7%D 119C8 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not co!er cleaning in general. /inding merit in the complaint.uo. the . b8 0hether or not the cleaning of the Manila -ay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. the Court ordered defendant. with defendant D"2. 7%D8 119C or the %hilippine "n!ironment Code. specifically %residential Decree 2o. as plaintiffs a .uate NsewerageO treatment facilities in strategic . 1ointly and solidarily. within si 7A8 months from receipt hereof. to clean up and rehabilitate Manila -ay and restore its waters to S. respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila -ay constitutes a !iolation of. as the lead agency. to act and perform their respecti!e duties by de!ising a consolidated. respondents.agencies. are directed.espondents+ constitutional right to life.TC rendered a Decision in fa!or of respondents.go!ernment agencies. and a balanced ecologyH 7C8 The "n!ironment Code 7%D 119C8H 738 The %ollution Control (aw 7%D 9=)8H 7)8 The 0ater Code 7%D 1:A<8H 798 The Sanitation Code 7%D =9A8H 7A8 The #llegal Disposal of 0astes Decree 7%D =C98H 7<8 The Marine %ollution (aw 7%D 9<98H 7=8 " ecuti!e &rder 2o. among othersG 718 .
Defendant D&6. which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila -ay. some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respecti!e offices and mandates. time is of the essenceH hence.uatic animals. to re!itali*e the marine life in Manila -ay and restoc' its waters with indigenous fish and other a. to install. construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal of waste. Defendant %hilippine Coast Duard and the %2% Maritime Droup. operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of to ic and ha*ardous substances.uatic . playground. Defendant (0E$. 0he Court of !ppeals &ustained the *0C4s Decision The M0SS. (ocal 0ater Etilities $dministration 7(0E$8. #n the light of the ongoing en!ironmental degradation. %hilippine 2ational %olice 7%2%8 Maritime Droup. Defendant D$. emphasi*ed. to remo!e and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education the importance of preser!ing and protecting the en!ironment. to pro!ide and set aside an ade. daunting as they may be.uid wastes which e!entually end up in Manila -ay. operate and maintain an ade. such as carcass of sun'en !essels. Department of %ublic 0or's and 6ighways 7D%068. to establish. #t is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila -ay to its former splendor and bring bac' the plants and sea life that once thri!ed in its blue waters. This means that the State. to protect at all costs the Manila -ay from all forms of illegal fishing. and as a historical landmar' cannot be o!er. Defendant MMD$. -ut the tas's ahead. Metropolitan Manila De!elopment $uthority 7MMD$8.minded indi!iduals. Defendant D-M. there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tas's. and fi!e other e ecuti!e departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for re!iew under . to see to it that the water districts under its wings.use or recycling of wastes.uate and appropriate sanitary landfill and@or ade. and %%$ filed before the Court of $ppeals 7C$8 indi!idual 2otices of $ppeal.uate budget solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila -ay. has to ta'e the lead in the . the D"2. $s the construction and engineering arm of the go!ernment.. These nuisances discharge solid and li. %hilippine Coast Duard 7%CD8.places under its 1urisdiction and increase their capacities. #ndeed.uid disposal as well as other alternati!e garbage disposal system such as re. would put their minds to these tas's and ta'e responsibility.uate solid waste and li.uid wastes from doc'ing !essels that contribute to the pollution of the bay. Defendant D"CS. &n the other hand. and other non. to pre!ent and also to treat the discharge not only of ship. with the help and cooperation of all ci!ic.uire them to ha!e proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tan's. through petitioners. through the -ureau of /isheries and $. pro!ide.biodegradable garbage in the bay. D%06 is ordered to acti!ely participate in remo!ing debris.ule )9. to closely super!ise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge companies and re.generated wastes but also of other solid and li.esources. The importance of the Manila -ay as a sea resource. Defendant %%$. could only be accomplished if those mandated. Defendant D"2. the Court wishes to emphasi*e the e treme necessity for all concerned e ecuti!e departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respecti!e official duties and obligations.. Defendant D%06.
$nything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.preser!ation and protection of the Manila -ay. they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of /ilipinos to 'eep the waters of the Manila -ay clean and clear as humanly as possible. C::9. So it was that in 5posa v# 9actoran. . li'e other ci!il and political rights guaranteed in the -ill of . stressing that the trial court+s decision did not re. to e ist from the inception of man'ind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications.uire petitioners to do tas's outside of their usual basic functions under e isting laws. "!en assuming the absence of a categorical legal pro!ision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay. the C$ denied petitioners+ appeal and affirmed the Decision of the . -y a Decision of September C=.ights.TC in toto. Jr# the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not e!en be written in the Constitution for it is assumed.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.