Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the case of Avia Filipina vs CAB, it has been ruled that under
sec. 10 ( c ) ( 1 ) of R.A. 776 , the board possesses this specific power and duty. In
view thereof the opposition of PAL on this ground is hereby denied.
ISSUE: WON, the congress, in enacting R.A. 776, has delegated the
authority to authorize the operation of domestic air transport services to the
respondent board, such that Congressional man. Date for the approval of such
authority is no longer necessary
The court find that the CAB has the authority to issue a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity, or TOP to domestic air transport operator, who
, though not possessing a legislative franchise, meets all other requirements
prescribed by law.
The Revised Rules of NLRC are dear and explicit and leave no room
for interpretation.
Under the above quoted provision of the revised NLRC Rules, the
decision appealed from in this case has become final and executed and can no
longer be subject to appeal.
FACTS: Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corp. filed
against the NTC, an action for declaration of nullify of NTC Memorandum Circular no
B-6-2000 and the NTC Memorandum dated Oct. 6, 2000 with prayer for issuance of
writ of preliminary injunction and Temporary Restraining Order ( TRO ). The
complaint was filled at the RTC of the Quezon City.
1. That the filling statement shall be received by the subscriber of the telephone
services not later than 30 days from the end of each billing cycle and in case
the statement is received beyond the period. The subscriber shall have
specified grace period and the Public telecommunication entity ( PTE ) shall
not be allowed to disconnect the services within the grace period.
2. That there shall be no charge for calls that are diverted to a voice mailbox,
voice prompt. Recorded messages or similar facility excluding the customer
own equipment.
3. That PTEs shall verify the identification and address of each purchaser of
prepaid SIM cards. Prepaid call cards and SIM cards shall be valid for at least
2 years from the date of first use. Holders of prepaid SIM cards shall be given
45 days from the date the prepaid SIM cards is fully consumed but not
beyond 2 years and 45 days from the date of first use to replenish the SIM
cards, otherwise the SIM card shall be rendered invalid. The validity of an
invalid SIM card shall be installed upon the request of the costumer of no
additional charge.
4. That subscriber shall be updated of the remaining value of their cards, before
the start of every call using the cards.
5. That unit of billing for the circular mobile telephone services whether
postpaid or prepaid shall be reduced from 1 minute per value to 6 seconds
per pulse.
ISSUE: WON, the Court of Appeals erred in holing that the private
respondent failed to exhaust administrative agencies.
SEC averred that it received reports that IRC failed to make timely
public disclosures of its negotiations with GHB and that some of its directors heavily
traded IRC shares utilizing this material insider information. On Aug. 16, 1994, the
SEC Chairman issued a directive requiring IRC to submit to SEC a copy of its
aforesaid MOA with GHB and further directed all principal officers of IRC to appear at
a hearing before the Brokers and Exchanges Department (BED) of SEC to explain
IRCs failure to immediately disclose the information as required by the Rules on
Disclosure of Material Facts y the corporation whose securities are listed in an stock
Exchange or registered or licensed under the Securities act. IRC sent a letter to SEC,
attaching a copies of MOA and its directors appeared to explain IRCs alleged failure to
immediately disclose material information as required under the rules on disclosure of
material facts.
SEC Chairman issued an order finding that IRC violated the rules n
disclosure of material facts, in connection with the old securities Act of1936, when it
failed to make timely disclosure of its negotiations with GHB. In addition, the SEC
pronounced that some of the officers and directors of the IRC entered into some of the
officer and directors of IRC entered into transactions involving IRC shares in violation of
Sec. 30 in relation to Sec. 36 of the Revised Securities Act. IRC filed an Monibus Motion
alleging that SEC had no authority to investigate the subject matter, since under Sec. 8
of PD 902-A, as amended by PD 1758, jurisdiction was conferred upon the prosecution
and enforcement Department (PED) of SEC.
IRC also claimed that SEC violated their right to due process when it
ordered that the respondents appear before SEC and show cause why no administrative,
civil, or criminal sanctions should be imposed on them, and thus, shifted the burden of
proof to the respondents. Respondents also filed a Motion for Continuance of
Proceedings but no formal hearings were conducted in connection with the
aforementioned motions. But on Jan. 25, 1995, SEC issued an Omnibus order creating a
special investigating panel to hear and decide the case in accordance with rules and
practice and procedure before the PED, SEC, to recall the show cause orders and to
deny the Motion for continuance for lack of merit.
Further decided that the ruled of practice and procedure before the
PED did not comply with the statutory requirements contained in the administrative
code of 1997. Sec. 9 of the Rules of practice and procedure before the PED affords a
party the right to be present but without the right to cross-examines witnesses
presented against him, in violation of Sec. 12(3), Chap. 3, bok 7 of the Administrative
Code.
ISSUE: WON, the SEC retains the jurisdiction to investigate violations of the
Revised Securities Act, re-enacted in the Securities Regulations Code, despite the
abolition of the PED.
Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code clearly provides that criminal complaints
for violations of rules and regulations enforced or administered by the SEC shall be
referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for preliminary investigation, while the SEC
nevertheless retains limited investigatory powers. 70 Additionally, the SEC may still
impose the appropriate administrative sanctions under Section 54 of the
aforementioned law.71
In Morato v. Court of Appeals,72 the cases therein were still pending before the PED for
investigation and the SEC for resolution when the Securities Regulations Code was
enacted. The case before the SEC involved an intra-corporate dispute, while the subject
matter of the other case investigated by the PED involved the schemes, devices, and
violations of pertinent rules and laws of the company's board of directors. The
enactment of the Securities Regulations Code did not result in the dismissal of the
cases; rather, this Court ordered the transfer of one case to the proper regional trial
court and the SEC to continue with the investigation of the other case.
The case at bar is comparable to the aforecited case. In this case, the SEC already
commenced the investigative proceedings against respondents as early as 1994.
Respondents were called to appear before the SEC and explain their failure to disclose
pertinent information on 14 August 1994. Thereafter, the SEC Chairman, having already
made initial findings that respondents failed to make timely disclosures of their
negotiations with GHB, ordered a special investigating panel to hear the case. The
investigative proceedings were interrupted only by the writ of preliminary injunction
issued by the Court of Appeals, which became permanent by virtue of the Decision,
dated 20 August 1998, in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 37036. During the pendency of this case, the
Securities Regulations Code repealed the Revised Securities Act. As in Morato v. Court of
Appeals, the repeal cannot deprive SEC of its jurisdiction to continue investigating the
case; or the regional trial court, to hear any case which may later be filed against the
respondents.
Meanwhile, the registered owners of the subject land entered into a joint project
with 1st A.M. Realty Development Corporation, represented by Atty. Alejandro Macasaet
for its development. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) approved the
landowners application for conversion, subject to the following conditions: 1. The
farmer-beneficiary, if any, shall be paid disturbance compensation pursuant to R.A. 3844
as amended by R.A. 6389; 2. The remaining 18.5006 hectares shall be covered by CARP
under compulsory acquisition and the same be distributed to qualified farmer-
beneficiaries. In relation to paragraph 2 thereof, the MARO pursued the coverage of the
remaining 18.5006 has. The petitioners herein were identified as qualified farmer-
beneficiaries where three (3) Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) were issued
in their favor. Respondents, on the other hand, were paid of their disturbance
compensation. They now, however, question the validity and legality of the institution of
the petitioners as beneficiaries over the subject landholding. Sometime on January
1996, respondents together with the landowners filed another case for annulment of
CLOAs and prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order. The Office of the
Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision dismissing the case, The PARAD
ruled that respondents had waived their rights as tenants and as farmer-beneficiaries of
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) program, as evidenced by their Salaysay and
that it had no authority to rule on the selection of farmer-beneficiaries, as the same was
a purely administrative matter under the jurisdiction of the DAR
ISSUE: WON, the DARABs jurisdiction to entertain the question of whether the
subject property is subject to CARP coverage.