G.R. No.

134990

April 27, 2000

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

failed to substantiate his contentions. There is no showing that

GRANEXPORT and/or UNITED COCONUT was vested with
functions relating to public needs whether governmental or
proprietary in nature unlike PETROPHIL in Quimpo. The Court thus
concludes that the CIIF companies are, as found by public
respondent, private corporations not within the scope of its
jurisdiction.

Facts:

G.R. No. 141658

International Towage and Transport Corporation (ITTC), a domestic

corporation engaged in the lighterage or shipping business, entered
into a one (1)-year contract with Legaspi Oil Company, Inc.
(LEGASPI OIL),
Granexport Manufacturing Corporation
(GRANEXPORT) and United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UNITED
COCONUT), comprising the Coconut Industry Investment Fund
(CIIF) terminate the agreement provided a three (3)-month advance
notice was given to the other party. However, in August 1996, or
prior to the expiration of the contract, the CIIF companies with their
new President, respondent Oscar A. Torralba, terminated the contract
without the requisite advance notice. charged respondent Tirso
Antiporda, Chairman of UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills, and respondent
Oscar A. Torralba with violation of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act also before the Ombudsman 1998 public respondent
dismissed the complaint based on its finding that The case is a simple
case of breach of contract with damages which should have been
filed in the regular court. Petitioner contends that coconut levy funds
are public funds then, conformably with Quimpo v. Tanodbayan,6
corporations formed and organized from those funds or whose
controlling stocks are from those funds should be regarded as
government owned and/or controlled corporations.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,

vs.
THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY,
INC.,
THE
PHILIPPINE
AMERICAN
ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and THE PHILIPPINE
AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents.

Issue

Issue

W/N The corporations are considered GOCCs

WON the term lending investor embraces insurance companies.

Rule

Rule

No, CIIF companies are government owned and/or controlled

corporations are incomplete without resorting to the definition of
"government owned or controlled corporation" contained in par. (13),
Sec. 2, Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987, i.
e., any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation vested
with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or
proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or
through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in
the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51)
percent of its capital stock. The definition mentions three (3)
requisites, namely, first, any agency organized as a stock or non-stock
corporation; second, vested with functions relating to public needs
whether governmental or proprietary in nature; and, third, owned by
the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to
the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock.

No, Originally, a person who was engaged in lending money at

interest was taxed as a money lender. [Sec. 1464(x), Rev. Adm. Code]
The term money lenders was defined as including "all persons who
make a practice of lending money for themselves or others at
interest." Originally, a person who was engaged in lending money at
interest was taxed as a money lender. [Sec. 1464(x), Rev. Adm. Code]
The term money lenders was defined as including "all persons who
make a practice of lending money for themselves or others at
interest."

In the present case, all three (3) corporations comprising the CIIF
companies were organized as stock corporations.1wphi1 The
UCPB-CIIF owns 44.10% of the shares of LEGASPI OIL, 91.24% of
the shares of GRANEXPORT, and 92.85% of the shares of UNITED
COCONUT. 15 Obviously, the below 51% shares of stock in
LEGASPI OIL removes this firm from the definition of a government
owned or controlled corporation. Our concern has thus been limited
to GRANEXPORT and UNITED COCONUT as we go back to the
second requisite. Unfortunately, it is in this regard that petitioner

March 18, 2005

Facts
Respondents are domestic corporations licensed to transact insurance
business in the country. From August 1971 to September 1972,
respondents paid the Bureau of Internal Revenue under protest the
3% tax imposed on lending investors On 31 January 1973,
respondents sent a letter-claim to petitioner seeking a refund of the
taxes paid under protest. When respondents did not receive a
response, each respondent filed on 26 April 1973 a petition for review
with the CTA. These three petitions, which were later consolidated,
argued that respondents were not lending investors and as such were
not subject to the 3% lending investors tax under Section 195-A. The
CTA archived respondents case for several years while another case
with a similar issue was pending before the higher courts. When
respondents case was reinstated, the CTA ruled that respondents
were entitled to their refund.

Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

Rule
1.) Yes. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, 17 the Court
of Appeals exercises:

EN BANC
G.R. No. 83578 March 16, 1989
THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-DOLLAR SALTING TASK
FORCE,
petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE
TEOFILO L, GUADIZ, JR.,Presiding Judge, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, Branch 147: NCR (MAKATI), and KARAMFIL
IMPORT-EXPORT CO., INC.,
Facts
The petitioner, the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force, the
President's arm assigned to investigate and prosecute so-called
"dollar salting", issued search warrants Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
and 161 against the petitionersthe private respondent (the petitioner
below) went to the Regional Trial Court on a petition to enjoin the
implementation of the search warrants in question. to be null and
void. the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force went to the
respondent Court of Appeals to contest, on certiorari, the twin
Order(s) of the lower court.
Herein petitioner is a special quasi-judicial body
with express powers enumerated under PD 1936
to prosecute foreign exchange violations defined
and punished under P.D. No. 1883.
The petitioner, in exercising its quasi-judicial
powers, ranks with the Regional Trial Courts, and
the latter in the case at bar had no jurisdiction to
declare the search warrants in question null and
void.
On November 12, 1986, Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc. sought a
reconsider
ation, on the question primarily of whether or not the Presidential
Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force is "such other responsible officer'
countenanced by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants of search
and seizure.
As we have indicated, the Court of Appeals, on Karamfil's motion,
reversed itself and issued its Resolution, dated September 1987, and
subsequently, its Resolution, dated May 20, 1988, denying the
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Issue
WON RTC of the same rank with quasi-judicial agency hence the
latter has no jurisdiction over appeal cases.
WON such other responsible officer' countenanced by the 1973
Constitution to issue warrants of search and seizure

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,

resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Court and quasijudicial agencies
As a rule, where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of
certain administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that
such bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of
rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter.
2.) No. . Its undertaking, as we said, is simply, to determine whether
or not probable cause exists to warrant the filing of charges with the
proper court It must be observed that under the present Constitution,
the powers of arrest and search are exclusive upon judges
as used by the Constitution, to mean not only skill and competence
but more significantly, neutrality and independence comparable to the
impartiality presumed of a judicial officer. A prosecutor can in no
manner be said to be possessed of the latter qualities.
G.R.
No.
192935
December
7,
2010
LOUIS
BAROK
C.
BIRAOGO
vs.
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010
x - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R.
No.
193036
REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR.,
REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B.
FUA,
SR.
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD
FACTS:
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President
with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption.
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President
with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption
Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts
if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in
our courts of law.
Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin
the PTC from performing its functions. They argued that:
(a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power
of the Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its
operation.

(b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the

Administrative Code of 1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because
the delegated authority of the President to structurally reorganize the
Office of the President to achieve economy, simplicity and efficiency
does not include the power to create an entirely new public office
which was hitherto inexistent like the Truth Commission.
(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes when it
vested the Truth Commission with quasi-judicial powers
duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office of the
Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the DOJ
created under the Administrative Code of 1987.
ISSUE
2. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by
usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds
for
public
offices,
agencies
and
commissions;
3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the
DOJ;

RULE
2.) NO. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or
allocations of existing funds already appropriated.
3.) NO. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode
their respective powers. The function of determining probable cause
for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains
to be with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTCs power to investigate
is limited to obtaining facts so that it can advise and guide the
President in the performance of his duties relative to the execution
and enforcement of the laws of the land.

Bagaoisan vs Nat'l Tobacco Administration.

G.R. No. 152845 : August 5, 2003.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. BY C Y.
DRIANITA BAGAOISAN, FELY MADRIAGA,
SHIRLY TAGABAN, RICARDO SARANDI, SUSAN
IMPERIAL, BENJAMIN DEMDEM, RODOLFO
DAGA, EDGARDO BACLIG, GREGORIO
LABAYAN, HILARIO
JEREZ, and MARIA CORAZON CUANANG,
petitioners, vs. NATIONAL TOBACCO
ADMINISTRATION, represented by ANTONIO
DE GUZMAN and PERLITA BAULA,
respondents.
VITUG, J.:
FACTS:
1. The petitioner was terminated from there
position in the national tobacco
administration as a result of the executive

order issued by president Estrada which

mandates for the stream lining of the
national tobacco administration, a
government agency under the department of
agriculture.
2. The petitioners filed a letter of appeal to
the civil service commission to recall the
ossp.
3. Petitioner all file a petition for certiorari
with prohibition an mandamus with prayer
for preliminary mandatory injunction and a
temporary restraining
order with the regional trial court of Batak to
prevent the respondent from enforcing the
notice of termination and from austing the
petitioners in there
respective offices.
4. The regional trial court issued an order
ordering the national tobacco administration
to appoint the petitioner to the ossp to
position similar to the
one that they hold before.
5. The national tobacco administration
appealed to the court of appeals who
reversed the decision of the RTC.
6. Petitioner appealed to the supreme court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the reorganization of the
national tobacco administration is valid true
issuance of executive order by the president.
According to the supreme court, The
president has the power to reorganized an
office to achieve simplicity ,economy and
efficiency as provided under executive
order 292 sec. 31 and section 48 of RA 7645
which provides that activities of executive
agencies may be scaled down if it is no
longer essential for the
delivery of public service.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Admit Petition for
En Banc resolution and the Petition for an En
Banc Resolution are DENIED for lack of merit.
Let entry of judgment
be made in due course. No costs.