You are on page 1of 4

National Housing Corp. v. Juco, 134 SCRA 172 (198!

F: Juco was an employee of the NHA. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal w/ MOL !ut his case
was dismissed !y the la!or ar!iter on the ground that the NHA is a go"t#owned corp. and $urisdiction o"er
its employees is "ested in the %&%. On appeal' the NL(% re"ersed the decision and remanded the case to
the la!or ar!iter for further proceedings. NHA in turn appealed to the &%
)&&*: Are employees of the National Housing %orporation' a +O%% without original charter' co"ered
!y the La!or %ode or !y laws and regulations go"erning the ci"il ser"ice,
HL-: &ec. ..' Art /))#0 of the %onstitution specifically pro"ides: 12he %i"il &er"ice em!races e"ery
!ranch' agency' su!di"ision and instrumentality of the +o"ernment' including e"ery go"ernment owned
and controlled corporation.
2he inclusion of +O%% within the em!race of the ci"il ser"3ice shows a deli!erate effort at the framers
to plug an earlier loophole which allowed +O%% to a"oid the full conse4uences of the ci"il ser"ice
system. All offices and firms of the go"ernment are co"ered.
2his consti pro"ision has !een implemented !y statute 5- 678 is une4ui"ocal that personnel of +O%%
!elong to the ci"il ser"ice and su!$ect to ci"il ser"ice re4uirements.
1"ery1 means each one of a group' without e9ception. 2his case refers to a +O%%. )t does not co"er
cases in"ol"ing pri"ate firms ta:en o"er !y the go"ernment in foreclosure or similar proceedings.
999
For purposes of co"erage in the %i"il &er"ice' employees of go"t# owned or controlled corps. whether
created !y special law or formed as su!sidiaries are co"ered !y the %i"il &er"ice Law' not the La!or
%ode' and the fact that p"t. corps. owned or controlled !y the go"t may !e created !y special charter does
not mean that such corps. not created !y special law are not co"ered !y the %i"il &er"ice.
999
2he infirmity of the resp;s position lies in its permitting the circum"ention or emasculation of &ec. .' Art.
/))#0 <now Art )/' 0' &ec. = >.?@ of the %onsti. )t would !e possi!le for a regular ministry of go"t to
create a host of su!sidiary corps. under the %orp. %ode funded !y a willing legislature. A go"t#owned
corp. could create se"eral su!sidiary corps. 2hese su!sidiary corps. would en$oy the !est of two worlds.
2heir officials and employees would !e pri"ileged indi"iduals' free from the strict accounta!ility re4uired
!y the %i"il &er"ice -ec. and the regulations of the %OA. 2heir incomes would not !e su!$ect to the
competiti"e restraint in the open mar:et nor to the terms and conditions of ci"il ser"ice employment.
%oncei"a!ly' all go"t#owned or controlled corps. could !e created' no longer !y special charters' !ut
through incorp. under the general law. 2he %onstitutional amendment including such corps. in the
em!race of the ci"il ser"ice would cease to ha"e application. %ertainly' such a situation cannot !e allowed
For more case digests and law school notes "isit liAa$amarga.com.
B B B
Rura v. "op#na $%R "&'981(&14, 19 Jun# 198)
Facts: 2eodulo (ura was accused' tried and con"icted of fi"e >C? counts of estafa committed on different
dates in the Municipal %ircuit 2rial %ourt of 2u!igon#%larin' 2u!igon' 0ohol' denominated as %riminal
%ase C=D' C=E' C=C' C=F and C=8. 2he C cases were $ointly tried and a single decision was rendered on .6
August .G6D. (ura was sentenced to a total prison term of .8 months and =C days. )n each criminal case
the sentence was D months and fifteen .C days.
(ura appealed to the (2% 0ohol !ut said court affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hhen the case
was remanded to the court of origin for e9ecution of $udgment' (ura applied for pro!ation. 2he
application was opposed !y a pro!ation officer of 0ohol on the ground that (ura is dis4ualified for
pro!ation under &ection G >c? of 5- GF6 or the 5ro!ation Law >i.e. applica!le to those who ha"e
pre"iously !een con"icted !y final $udgment of an offense punished !y imprisonment of not less than .
month and . day and/or a fine of not less than 5=77?. 2he court denied the application for pro!ation. A
motion for reconsideration was li:ewise denied. Hence the instant petition.
2he &upreme %ourt granted the pro!ation and directed the $udge to gi"e due course to the petitionerIs
application for pro!ationJ without costs.
.. K5re"iousL applies to date of con"iction' not to date of commission of a crime
2he statute relates Kpre"iousL to the date of con"iction' not to the date of the commission of the crime.
Hhen the accused applied for pro!ation he had no pre"ious con"iction !y final $udgment. Hhen he
applied for pro!ation the only con"iction against him was the $udgment which was the su!$ect of his
application. %on"iction does not retroact to the day of the commission of the crime.
B B B
Aparri vs CA %R "&3((7
Facts:
On January .C' .GF7' pri"ate respondent appro"ed the following resolution M .D' here!y appointing Mr.
0runo Aparri' as general manager of NA((A' with all the rights' prerogati"es and compensations to ta:e
effect on January ..F' .GF7.
On March .C' .GF=' the !oard of directors appro"ed resolution M =E which stating thereat that the
incum!ent general manager shall perform his duty up to the close of office hour on March D.' .GF=. )n
accordance with the pro"isions of section 6' su!#section = of (A ..F7. )t here!y fi9es the term of office
of the incum!ent general manager until march D.' .GF=. 5etitioner file a mandamus with preliminary
in$unction with the first instance court. 2he petition pray for the annulment of the resolution of NA((A
!oard.
)ssue:
Hhether or not !oard resolution No. =E was a remo"al or dismissal of petitioner without cause.
Held:
)t was affirmed that the term of office of petitioner e9pired on March D.' .GF=. )t is necessary in each
case to interpret the word 12erm1 with the pur"iew of the statutes so as to effectuate the statutory scheme
pertaining to the office under e9amination. )n the case at !ar' the term of office is not fi9ed !y law.
Howe"er' the power to fi9 the term is rested in the !oard of directors su!$ect to the recommendation of
the office of economic coordination and the appro"al of the president of the philippines. (esolution No.
=E spea:s of no remo"al !ut an e9piration of the term of office of the petitioner. 2he statute is undenia!ly
clear. 1)t is the rule in statutory construction that if the words and phrases of a statute are not o!scure or
am!iguous. )ts meaning and intention of the legislati"e must !e determined from the language employed
and where there is no am!iguity in words' there is no room for construction.
2he petitioner in this case was not remo"ed !efore the e9piration of his term rather' his right to hold
office ceased !y the e9piration on March D.' .GF=' of his term to hold such office.
B B B
Jos# Antonio *apa v. Hon. Jo+#r Arro,o an- "a.ra-or /#v#lop0#nt Corporation
1AC2S3
Mapa !ought lots from La!rador -e"elopment %orporation which are paya!le in ten years. Mapa
defaulted to pay the installment dues and continued to do so despite constant reminders !y La!rador. 2he
latter informed Mapa that the contracts to sell the lots were cancelled' !ut Mapa in"o:ed %lause =7 of the
four contracts. &aid clause o!ligates La!rador to complete the de"elopment of the lots' e9cept those
re4uiring the ser"ices of a pu!lic utility company or the go"ernment' within D years from the date of the
contract. 5etitioner contends that 5.-. GC8 re4uires La!rador to pro"ide the Kfacilities' impro"ements' and
infrastructures for the lots' and other forms of de"elopmentL if offered and indicated in the
appro"ed su!di"ision plans.
4SS563
H/N %lause =7 of the said contracts include and incorporate 5.-. GC8 through the doctrine of last
antecedent' ma:ing the cancellation of the contracts of sale incorrect.
H6"/3
No. La!rador has e"ery right to cancel the contracts of sale' pursuant to %lause 8 of the said contract for
the reason of the lapse of fi"e years of default payment from Mapa. 5.-. GC8 does not apply !ecause it
was enacted long after the e9ecution of the contracts in"ol"ed' and' other than those pro"ided in %lause
=7' no further written commitment was made !y the de"eloper. 2he words Kwhich are offered and
indicated in the su!di"ision or condominium plansL refer not only to Kother forms of de"elopmentL !ut
also to Kfacilities' impro"ements' and
infrastructuresL. 2he word KandL is not meant to separate words' !ut is a con$unction used to denote a
$oinder or a union.
B B B
NA247NA" 8796R C7R87RA247N, petitioner, vs. 8R7:4NC6 71 "ANA7 /6" S5R,
"ANA7 /6" S5R %7:6RN7R SA4/A*6N ;. 8AN%AR5N%AN an- "ANA7 /6" S5R
8R7:4NC4A" 2R6AS5R6R HA/J4 *AC*7/ ". /A"4/4%, respondents.
Facts: 5etitioner was assessed real estate ta9es on its properties in Lanao del &ur. )t filed a protest
alleging that it is e9empt from ta9 pursuant to %ommonwealth Act .=7' &ec = of (A DC6 and (A FDGC.
)ssue: HON petitioner has ceased to en$oy its ta9 and duty e9emption pri"ileges' including its e9emption
from payment of real property ta9es.
HL-: NO. &ection E7>a? of the (eal 5roperty 2a9 %ode' 5- EFE' as amended' e9pressly e9empts them
from such ta9. &aid section pro"ides:
KExemptions from Real Property Tax. ## 2he e9emption shall !e as follows:
>a? (eal property owned !y the (epu!lic of the 5hilippines or any of its political su!di"isions and
any go"ernment#owned corporation so e9empt !y its charter. 5ro"ided' howe"er' that this e9emption
shall not apply to real property of the a!o"enamed entities the !eneficial use of which has !een granted'
for consideration or otherwise' to a ta9a!le person.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9.L
2he e9emption is not only legally defensi!le' !ut also logically unassaila!le. 2he properties in 4uestion
comprise the site of the entire Agus )) Hydroelectric 5ower 5lant %omple9' which generates and supplies
relati"ely cheap electricity to the island of Mindanao. 2hese are go"ernment properties' wholly owned !y
petitioner and de"oted directly and solely for pu!lic ser"ice and utiliAed in the implementation of the state
policy of !ringing a!out the total electrification of the country at the least cost to the pu!lic' through the
de"elopment of power from all sources to meet the needs of industrial de"elopment and rural
electrification.
B B B
National Power Corp. v. Angas
4SS56: whether the term $udgment' refers to any $udgment directing the payment of legal interest.
S2A2526: %entral 0an: %ircular No. E.F N K!y "irtue of the authority granted to it under &ec. . of Act
Num!er =FCC' as amended' otherwise :nown as *sury Law' the Monetary 0oard in a resolution
prescri!ed that the rate of interest for loan or for!earance of any money' good or credit O the rate allowed
in $udgment in the a!sence of e9press contract shall !e .=P per annum.
H6"/: Judgments should mean only $udgments in"ol"ing loans or for!earance money' goods or credit'
these later specific terms ha"ing restricted the meaning K$udgmentsL to those same class or the same
nature as those specifically enumerated.
B B B