ALZAGA V.

SANDIGANBAYAN 505 SCRA 848 (2006)

OVERVIEW
This Petition for Certiorari assails the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case, which respectively reversed the
Resolution of the court quo and denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.

FACTS:
1. There was a case filed against the petitioners regarding alleged irregularities which attended the purchase of four lots in
Tanauan, Batangas by the AFP-RSBS (Arm Forces of the Philippines – Retirement and Separation Benefits System).
2. Alzaga was the Head of the Legal Department of AFP-RSBS when one of the lots was purchased.
3. Bello was a Police Superintendent and he succeeded Alzaga as Head of the Legal Department. It was during his tenure when the
other three lots were purchased. Both were Vice Presidents of AFP-RSBS.
4. On the other hand, Satuito was the Chief of the Documentation and Assistant Vice President of the AFP-RSBS.
5. Petitioners claim that they are not under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan since AFP-RSB is a private entity.
6. With this, Petitioners filed their respective Motions to Quash and/or Dismiss.
7. In 2004, Sandiganbayan granted petitioners motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
8. But in 2005, reversed its resolution.

ISSUE:
WON AFP-RSBS is a private entity created for the benefits of its member thus beyond jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

RULING:

 The AFP-RSBS was established by virtue of P.D. No. 361 (1973) to guarantee continuous financial support to the AFP military
retirement system, as provided for in R.A. No. 340. It is similar to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the ocial
Security System (SSS) since it serves as the system that manages the retirement and pension funds of those in the military service.

 This Court has ruled that the character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest thus the same is a
government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. The AFP-RSBS is a government-owned and controlled
corporation under R.A. No. 9182, otherwise known as The Special Purpose Vehicle Act of 2002.

 Since it is GOCC, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.
MIAA V. CA 495 SCRA 591 (2006)

OVERVIEW
 This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals pertaining to the exemption of
MIAA from real property tax.

FACTS:
1. On 2001, MIAA received Final Notices of Real Property Tax Delinquency from the City of Pasay for the taxable years 1992 to
2001.
2. City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy for the NAIA Pasay properties.
3. MIAA received the notices and warrants of levy on 28 August 2001.
4. Thereafter, the City Mayor of Pasay threatened to sell at public auction the NAIA Pasay properties if the delinquent real property
taxes remain unpaid.
5. On 29 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and injunction with prayer for preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order.
6. The petition sought to enjoin the City of Pasay from imposing real property taxes on, levying against, and auctioning for public
sale the NAIA Pasay properties.
7. On 30 October 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the power of the City of Pasay to impose and
collect realty taxes on the NAIA Pasay properties. MIAA filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Are the properties of MIAA exempt from real property tax?

RULING:
 MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt
from local taxation.
 The real properties of MIAA are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and thus... exempt from real estate tax.
 Sec 2(13) Administrative Code of 1987 defines a GOCC as follows:
Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to 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.
BOY SCOUTS Vs. COA 656 SCRA 146 (2011)

OVERVIEW:
This case is about the resolution issued by COA stating the BSP was created as a public corporation.

FACTS:
 COA issued a resolution stating that BSP stated that the BSP was created as a public corporation under CA No. 111, as amended
by PD No. 460 and RA No. 7278; also citing that in BSP v. NLRC, the Supreme Court ruled that the BSP, as constituted under its
charter, was a "government-controlled corporation within the meaning of Article IX(B)(2)(1) of the Constitution”.
 Thus, COA has auditing jurisdiction over BSP.
 The BSP sought reconsideration of the COA Resolution referring to RA 7278 which amended the composition of the national
executive board of the BSP and virtually eliminated the "substantial government participation".
 BSP also argued that assets and funds were never acquired from the government. Its operations are not in any way financed by the
government, as BSP has never been included in any appropriations act for the government.

ISSUE:
 Whether the BSP falls under the COA’s audit jurisdiction.

RULING:
 BSP is a public corporation and its funds are subject to the COAs audit jurisdiction.
 The purpose of the BSP as stated in its amended charter shows that it was created in order to implement a State policy
declared in Article II, Section 13 of the Constitution.
 "Sec. 3. The purpose of this corporation shall be to promote through organization and cooperation with other agencies, the
ability of boys to do useful things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to inculcate in them patriotism,
civic consciousness and responsibility, courage, self-reliance, discipline and kindred virtues, and moral values, using the
method which are in common use by boy scouts."
 Evidently, the BSP, which was created by a special law to serve a public purpose in pursuit of a constitutional mandate, comes
within the class of "public corporations" defined by paragraph 2, Article 44 of the Civil Code and governed by the law which
creates it, pursuant to Article 45 of the same Code.
FUNA VS. MECO and COA GR 193462 (2014)

OVERVIEW:
 This case is a petition for mandamus to compel the COA to audit and examine the funds of MECO and to compel MECO to
submit to auditing and examination.

FACTS:
 In 2010, the petitioner (Funa) sent letter to the COA requesting for a copy of the latest financial and audit report of MECO
invoking his constitutional right to information. (petitioner made the request on the belief that the MECO is a GOCC).
 Upon receipt of the letter, COA issued a memorandum revealing that MECO was not among the agencies audited by any of
the three clusters of the corporate government sector.”
 The petitioner immediately filed petition for mandamus.
 He posited that COA is neglecting its duty by failing to audit the accounts of the MECO.
 MECO denies the petitioner’s claim that it is a GOCC or a government instrumentality. The government merely has policy
supervision over it. Policy supervision is a lesser form of supervision wherein the government’s oversight is limited only to ensuring
that the corporation’s activities are in tune with the country’s commitments under the One China policy of the PROC.
 COA argues that, despite being a non-governmental entity, the MECO may still be audited with respect to the "verification fees" for
overseas employment documents that it collects from Taiwanese employers on behalf of the DOLE.

ISSUE:
 Is MECO within the definition of a government which is within the jurisdiction of the COA.

RULING:
 The MECO is not a GOCC or government instrumentality.
 It is a sui generis private entity especially entrusted by the government with the facilitation of unofficial relations with the
people in Taiwan without jeopardizing the country’s faithful commitment to the One China policy of the PROC.
 The Administrative Code defines a GOCC: replicated in RA No. 10149 or the GOCC Governance Act of 2011.
(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to 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) per cent of its capital stock:
 MECO lacks the third attribute.