Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investment PDF

2/11/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v.
ion v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court D…
花姿采花店情⼈節花束2020
⼼意花束，開張花籃，帛事花籃，結婚花球，宴會佈置，花⾞佈置，公司⽉花，蝴蝶蘭等
gloriosa orist.com 開啟
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2009 > February 2009 Decisions >
G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Investments:
Review
G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of

Investments
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 175787 : February 4, 2009]
PHILLIPS SEAFOOD (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD

OF INVESTMENTS, Respondent.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, assailing two related resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
89327. The Resolution 2 dated 24 May 2006 dismissed petitioner's Petition for Review
under Rule 43 and its omnibus motion seeking to amend the petition and to suspend
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 1/13
2/11/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court D…
the period for filing a reply. The Resolution 3 dated 24 November 2006 denied
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier resolution.
花姿采花店
The following factual antecedents are matters of record.
Petitioner Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation is a domestic corporation
情⼈節花束 engaged in the export of processed crabmeat and other seafood products. Petitioner
was incorporated on 20 October 1992 and registered under its previous corporate
2020 name of Phillips Seafood Masbate, Inc.
gloriosa orist.com
On 08 January 1993, petitioner registered with respondent Bureau of Investments
(BOI) as an existing and expansion producer of soft shell crabs and other seafood
香港九龍新界送貨服務 products, on a non-pioneer status under Certificate of Registration No. EP 93-219. 4
⼼意花束，開張花籃， Petitioner's plant was situated in PiÃ±a, Masbate, while its administrative office was
帛事花籃，結婚花球， then located in Cebu City before it was subsequently relocated to Calong-Calong,
宴會佈置，花⾞佈置， Airport Subdivision, Bacolod City.
公司⽉花，蝴蝶蘭等 Petitioner was granted an Income Tax Holiday (ITH) for six (6) years beginning July
1993 to July 1999, 5 for locating in a less-developed area in accordance with Article
40 6 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 226, otherwise known as The Omnibus

Investments Code of 1987.
開啟
Petitioner used to supply semi-processed raw materials to Phillips Seafood (Phils.),
Inc. (PSPI), an affiliate corporation also engaged in the export of seafood products,
before the latter's closure due to financial difficulties. On 21 July 1997, petitioner
acquired the right to use the canning facility of PSPI in Bacolod City during the
temporary suspension of PSPI's operations. Unable to recover from its financial
reverses, PSPI eventually stopped operations.
On 14 December 1998, petitioner acquired the title to the plant, facilities, equipment
and other assets belonging to PSPI, including its picking facilities in Cebu City. 7 In
October 1999, petitioner relocated its plant and office in Bacolod City to Barangay
Banica, Roxas City. Petitioner informed respondent BOI of said transfer. 8 Petitioner
also filed with respondent BOI an application for registration of its new plant having
an expanded capacity of 155,205 kilograms a year.
In a letter dated 18 November 1999, respondent BOI informed petitioner that the
latter's ITH under Certificate of Registration No. EP
93-219 would be extended until 12 August 2000, pursuant to Article 39 (a) (1) (ii) 9
of Executive Order No. 226. 10
On 06 January 2000, respondent BOI granted petitioner's application for registration

of its new plant in Roxas City under Certificate of Registration No. VI EP 2000-002.
Petitioner's registration was categorized as a new producer on a non-pioneer status
with an ITH for four years beginning January 2000. 11
On 22 June 2000, respondent BOI approved the registration of petitioner as a "New

Producer of Processed Fish" under another Certificate of Registration No. XI EP 2000-
74 with an ITH for four years beginning April 2000. 12
On 04 May 2000, petitioner filed with respondent BOI an application for an ITH for
taxable year 1999 under Certificate of Registration No. EP 93-219. It filed another
application for an ITH for the year 2000 under Certificate of Registration No. VI EP
2000-002 covering its crabmeat products and under Certificate of Registration No. XI
EP 20000-74 covering its processed fish products. Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
Petitioner changed its corporate name from PS-Masbate to its current name of Phillips
Seafood (Philippines) Corporation, which was approved by respondent BOI on 16
February 2001. 13
In a letter dated 25 September 2003, respondent BOI informed petitioner that the
ITH previously granted would be applicable only to the period from 13 August 1999
to 21 October 1999 or before petitioner's transfer to a "not less-developed area." 14
Petitioner wrote respondent BOI requesting for a reconsideration of its decision. 15
On 03 May 2004, petitioner received by fax BOI's letter denying its motion for
reconsideration. 16 Petitioner elevated the matter to the Office of the President, which
dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in a Decision dated
22 September 2004. 17 The Office of the President likewise denied petitioner's motion
for reconsideration in an Order dated 14 March 2005. 18 Petitioner received a copy of

the order on 01 April 2005.
On 05 April 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals,
questioning the dismissal of its appeal before the Office of the President. The petition
argued that the executive power of control over the acts of officials under the Office
of the President is superior to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over
decisions of quasi-judicial agencies under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 19
After respondent BOI filed its comment on the petition, petitioner filed an omnibus
motion asking for leave to file an amended petition to counter the issues raised in the
comment for the first time and to suspend the period for filing a reply. 20
On 24 May 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the first assailed resolution denying
petitioner's omnibus motion and dismissing its Petition for Review . The appellate
court denied petitioner's omnibus motion on the ground that the same was filed with
SEARCH FOR MORE intent to delay the case. Simultaneously, the appellate court dismissed the Petition
free online registrations for Review for having been filed out of time as petitioner opted to appeal to the Office
of the President instead of filing a Rule 43 petition to the Court of Appeals within the
supreme court cases and decisions
reglementary period. On 24 November 2006, the Court of Appeals issued the second
assailed resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
consulta de causas judiciales por nombre
Hence, the instant petition anchored on the following arguments: (1) petitioner's
company registered o ce address
omnibus motion asking for the amendment of its Petition for Review was filed to
avoid the multiplicity of suits; (2) the executive power of control over the acts of
business lawyer
department secretaries must not be rendered illusory by rules of procedure; and (3)
SEARCH FOR MORE petitioner is entitled to the ITH.

Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
free online registrations

In the main, petitioner argues that the review by the Office of the President of the
decisions of respondent BOI must be allowed; otherwise, the President's
constitutional power to review the decisions of department secretaries will be
consulta de causas judiciales por rendered
nombre illusory if said decisions may be reviewed only by the Court of Appeals.
The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right - it is a statutory

privilege and of statutory origin and, therefore, available only if granted or provided
philips v board of investments
by statute. It may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance
with, the provisions of the law. 21 Thus, in determining the appellate procedure
SEARCH FOR MORE governing administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or regulatory functions
free online registrations such as respondent BOI, a perusal of the legislative enactments creating them is
imperative.
The BOI was created by virtue of E.O. No. 226 at the time when then President
consulta de causas judiciales por Corazon
nombre Aquino was exercising legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investments Acts
of 1987, laid down the powers and duties of respondent both as a policy-making body
and a regulatory agency tasked with facilitating the growth of investment in the
philips v board of investments
country. Article 7, E.O. No. 226 directs respondent to act as a collegial body when
exercising its duties and powers. In addition to its administrative or policy-making
and regulatory functions, the BOI is also empowered to promulgate rules and
February-2009 Jurisprudence regulations to implement the provisions of E.O. No. 226. 22
As a policy-making body, the BOI is charged with the duties, among others, of
A.C. No. 7056 : February 11, preparing an annual investment priorities plan that gives incentives to specific
2009 - PLUS BUILDERS, INC., activities, 23 of recommending to the Bureau of Immigration the entry of foreign
and EDGARDO C. GARCIA,
nationals for employment purposes, 24 and of inspecting registered enterprises for
Complainants, v. ATTY.
compliance purposes. 25
ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.,
Respondent. Among the regulatory functions of the BOI are the processing of applications for
registration, 26 the cancellation of registration or suspension of the enjoyment of

A.C. No. 5338 - Eugenia
certain incentives under E.O. No. 226, 27 and the resolution of controversies arising
Mendoza v. Atty. Victor V.
from the implementation of E.O. No. 226. 28 There is no doubt that the resolution of
Deciembre
petitioner's claim that it is entitled to the ITH in the instant case calls for the exercise
of the BOI's regulatory functions.
A.C. No. 7084 - Conrado G.
Fernandez v. Atty. Maria Angelica E.O. No. 226 also provides for various remedies from the action or decision of the
P. De Ramos-Villalon BOI, depending on the nature of the controversy. These remedies, which are
interspersed among the provisions of E.O. No. 226, are as follows:
A.C. No. 7181 - Maria Angalan,
Art. 7. Powers and Duties of the Board. - The Board shall be responsible for the
et al. v. Atty. Lonido C. Delante
regulation and promotion of investments in the Philippines. x x x The presence of four
(4) governors shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of four (4)
A.M. No. 08-12-357-MCTC -
governors in a meeting validly held shall be necessary to exercise its powers and
Dropping from the rolls, Ms
perform its duties, which shall be as follows:
Paciencia E. Ajanab etc.
(4) After due hearing, decide controversies concerning the implementation of the
A.M. No. CA-09-47-J Formerly relevant books of this Code that may arise between registered enterprises or
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-121-CA-J - investors therein and government agencies, within thirty (30) days after the
Genaro Santiago III v. Justice controversy has been submitted for decision: Provided, That the investor or the
Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. etc. registered enterprise may appeal the decision of the Board within thirty (30)
days from receipt thereof to the President;
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1688
Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1763- xxx
MTJ - Danilo David S. Mariano v.

Art. 36. Appeal from Board's Decision. - Any order or decision of the Board shall be
Judge Jose P. Nacional
final and executory after thirty (30) days from its promulgation. Within the said
period of thirty (30) days, said order or decision may be appealed to the
A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC - In re:
Office of the President. Where an appeal has been filed, said order or decision shall
undated letter of Mr. Louis C.
be final and executory ninety (90) days after the perfection of the appeal, unless
Biraogo petitioner in Biraogo V.
reversed.
Nograles and Limkaichong, G.R.
No. 179120. xxx
Art. 50. Cause for Cancellation of Certificate of Authority or Payment of Fine. - A

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733 - Ma.
violation of any of the requirements set forth in Article 49 of the terms and conditions
Theresa G. Winternitz and Raquel
which the Board may impose shall be sufficient cause to cancel the certificate of
L. Gonzales v. Judge Lizabeth
authority issued pursuant to this Book and/or subject firms to the payment of fines in
Gutierrez-Torres
accordance with the rules and regulations issued by the Board: x x x Provided,
further, That where the issuance of said license has been irregular or contrary to law,
A.M. No. P-04-1831 Formerly
any person adversely affected thereby may file an action with the Regional Trial Court
OCA IPI No. 03-1690-P -
where said alien or foreign business organization resides or has its principal office to
Abdulmaid K. Muin v. Samuel A.
cancel said license. In such cases, no injunction shall issue without notice and
Avestruz, Jr. etc.
hearing; and appeals and other proceedings for review shall be filed directly
with the Supreme Court.
A.M No. P-06-2200 Formerly
OCA IPI No. 06-2-51-MTCC - xxx
Office of the Court Administrator
Art. 82. Judicial Relief. - All orders or decisions of the Board in cases involving the
v. Marlon Roque, CoC Br. 3 MTCC
provisions of this Code shall immediately be executory. No appeal from the order or
Angeles City and Anita G. Nunag,
decision of the Board by the party adversely affected shall stay such order or
CoC, OCC MTCC Angeles City
decision: Provided, That all appeals shall be filed directly with the Supreme
Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or decision. [Emphasis
A.M. No. P-07-2304 - Emilia
supplied]
Marinas v. Terencio G. Florendo,
et al. E.O. No. 226 apparently allows two avenues of appeal from an action or decision of
the BOI, depending on the nature of the controversy. One mode is to elevate an
A.M. No. P-07-2391 - Jennifer appeal to the Office of the President when the action or decision pertains to either of
B. Domingo v. Silvino R. Malana, these two instances: first, in the decisions of the BOI over controversies concerning
Jr. et al. the implementation of the relevant provisions of E.O No. 226 that may arise between
registered enterprises or investors and government agencies under Article 7; 29 and

A.M. No. P-07-2392 Formerly second, in an action of the BOI over applications for registration under the
OCA IPI No. 07-2579-P -
investment priorities plan under Article 36. 30
Rosalinda C. Aguilar v. Ronberto
V. Balino etc. Another mode of review is to elevate the matter directly to judicial tribunals. For
instance, under Article 50, E.O. No. 226, a party adversely affected by the issuance
A.M. No. P-08-2453 Formerly of a license to do business in favor of an alien or a foreign firm may file with the
OCA IPI No. 08-2764-P - proper Regional Trial Court an action to cancel said license. Then, there is Article 82,
Florencio R. Bernabe v. Zenaida E.O. No. 226, which, in its broad phraseology, authorizes the direct appeal to the
C. Grimaldo, etc. Supreme Court from any order or decision of respondent BOI "involving the
provisions of E.O. No. 226."

E.O. No. 226 contains no provision specifically governing the remedy of a party
OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2329-P -
whose application for an ITH has been denied by the BOI in the same manner that
Christopher D. Manaog v. Arnel
Articles 7 and 36 thereof allow recourse to the Office of the President in certain
Jose A. Rubio, et al.
instances. Nevertheless, Article 82 of E.O. No. 22 is the catch-all provision allowing
the appeal to the courts from all other decisions of respondent BOI involving the
other provisions of E.O. No. 226. The intendment of the law is undoubtedly to afford
A.M. No. 08-3-65-MCTC - Report
immediate judicial relief from the decision of respondent BOI, save in cases
on the financial audit conducted
mentioned under Articles 7 and 36.
in the MCTC-Maddela, Quirino
Enter to Win and Learn

A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2027 -
Keysight Wave
Marietta Duque v. Judge
Crisostomo L. Garrido Ad Register for Keysight Wa
Ad Oscilloscopes & More
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093 Keysight Technologies
Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2312-
Open
RTJ - Sylvia Santos v. Judge
Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua etc.
In relation to Article 82, E.O. No. 226, Section 1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2103 Procedure expressly includes respondent BOI as one of the quasi-judicial agencies
Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2664- whose judgments or final orders are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a verified
RTJ - Edna S.V. Ogka Benito v. Petition for Review . Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial
Rasad G. Balindong etc. agencies are now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified Petition
for Review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2137 formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for
Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2530- quasi-judicial agencies. 31

RTJ - Heirs of Sps. Jose &
Thus, petitioner should have immediately elevated to the Court of Appeals the denial
Concepcion Ologra etc. v. Judge
by respondent BOI of its application for an ITH. From the letter dated 09 October
Rolindo D. Beldia, Jr. & Branch
2003 of respondent BOI, which informed petitioner that its ITH would be extended
Clerk of Court Mary Emilie T.
only from 13 August 1999 to 21 October 1999, petitioner appealed to the Office of
Villanueva etc.
the President, a recourse that is not sanctioned by either the Rules of Civil Procedure
or by the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987.
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2163
Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2717- Petitioner cannot invoke Article 36 of E.O. No. 226 to justify its appeal to the Office of
RTJ - Edgardo D. Areola (A.K.A. the President. Article 36, along with Article 7, which allows recourse to the Office of
Mohammad Kahdaffy) v. Judge the President, applies to specific instances, namely, controversies between a
Bayani Y. Ilano etc. registered enterprise and a government agency and decisions concerning the
registration of an enterprise, respectively. Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. This
G.R. NOS. 119660-61 - Pat. enumeration is exclusive so that other controversies outside of its
Edgardo Herrera Y Baltoribio et
purview, including petitioner's entitlement to an ITH, can invoke only the appellate
al. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al.
judicial relief provided under Article 82. In the instant case, the denial of petitioner's
application for an ITH is not within the cases where the law expressly provides for
G.R. No. 127327 - Liberata appellate recourse to the Office of the President. That being the case, petitioner
Ambito et al. v. People of the should have elevated its appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
Philippines and CA
Petitioner further contends that from the decision of respondent BOI, appeal to the
Office of the President should be allowed; otherwise, the constitutional power of the
G.R. No. 141835 - Central
President to review acts of department secretaries will be rendered illusory by mere
Bank of the Philippines v.
rules of procedure.
Citytrust Banking Corporation
The executive power of control over the acts of department secretaries is laid down in
G.R. No. 142525 - Federal Section 17, Article VII 32 of the 1987 Constitution. The power of control has been
Builders, Inc. v. Daiichi Properties
defined as the "power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
and Development, Inc.
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter."
G.R. No. 143538 - Vicente A.
Miel v. Jesus A. Malindog Such "executive control" is not absolute. The definition of the structure of the
executive branch of government, and the corresponding degrees of administrative
G.R. No. 146157 - La control and supervision is not the exclusive preserve of the executive. It may be
Campana Development effectively limited by the Constitution, by law, or by judicial decisions. 33 All the more
Corporation v. Development Bank in the matter of appellate procedure as in the instant case. Appeals are remedial in
of the Philippines nature; hence, constitutionally subject to this Court's rule-making power. The Rules
of Procedure was issued by the Court pursuant to
G.R. No. 146949 - Narciso C.
Section 5, Article VIII 34 of the Constitution, which expressly empowers the Supreme
Loguinsa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
(5th Division) Court to promulgate rules concerning the procedure in all courts.
Parenthetically, Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 18 35 expressly recognizes an

G.R. No. 150141, 157359 and
exception to the remedy of appeal to the Office of the President from the decisions of
158644 - Agencia Exquisite of
executive departments and agencies. Under Section 1 36 thereof, a decision or order
Bohol, Inc. v. Commissioner of
issued by a department or agency need not be appealed to the Office of the President
Internal Revenue/Commissioner
when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal. In the
of Internal Revenue v. Agencia
instant case, the enabling law of respondent BOI, E.O. No. 226, explicitly allows for
Exquisite of Bohol, Inc./ G.R. No.
immediate judicial relief from the decision of respondent BOI involving petitioner's
158644(Exquisite Pawnshop &
application for an ITH. E.O. No. 226 is a law of special nature and should prevail over
Jewelry Inc. v. CIR)
A.O. No. 18.
G.R. No. 150873 - Zenaida V. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED and the
Sazon v. Sandiganbayan resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 24 May 2006 and 24 November 2006 in CA-
G.R. SP No. 89327 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
G.R. No. 152413 - Barceliza P.
Capistrano v. Darryl Limcuando, SO ORDERED.
et al.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 156101 - Heirs of

1 Rollo, pp. 10-55.
Jose T. Calo etc. v. Nona Calo &
Heirs of Romualdo Calo etc. 2 Id. at 57-59. Penned by J. Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and concurred
in by JJ. Marina L. Buzon, Chairperson of the Special Sixth Division, and
G.R. No. 156541 - Luz Cajigas
Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
and Larry Cajigas v. People of the
Philippines & Court of Appeals 3 Id. at 61-62.
4 Id. at 70.
G.R. No. 159310 - Camilo F.
Borromeo v. Antonieta O.
5 Id. at 72.
Descallar
6 Art. 40. A registered enterprise regardless of nationality located in a
G.R. No. 159578 - Rogelia less-developed-area included in the list prepared by the Board of
Daclag, et al. v. Elino Macahilig, Investments after consultation with the National Economic Development
et al. Authority and other appropriate government agencies, taking into
consideration the following criteria: low per capita gross domestic
G.R. No. 161793 - Edward product; low level of investments; high rate of unemployment and/or
Kenneth Ngo Te v. Rowena Ong underemployment; and low level of infrastructure development including
Gutierrez Yu-Te, et al. its accessibility to developed urban centers, shall be entitled to the
following incentives in addition to those provided in the preceding article:
G.R. No. 162324 - RFM
(a) Pioneer Incentives. - An enterprise in a less-developed-
Corporation-Flour Division and
area registered with the Board under Book I of this Code,
SFI Feeds Division v. Kasapian ng
whether proposed, or an expansion of an existing venture,
Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-RFM
shall be entitled to the incentives provided for a pioneer
(MAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and
registered enterprise under its law of registration.
Sandigan at Ugnayan ng
Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-SFI 7 Rollo, pp. 85-86.
(SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU)
8 Id. at 92.
G.R. NOS. 162335 & 162605 -
9 Art. 39. Incentives to Registered Enterprises. - All registered enterprises
Severino Manotok IV, et al. v.
shall be granted in the following incentives to the extent engaged in a
Heirs of Homer L. Barque etc.
preferred area of investment:
G.R. No. 163103 - Charlie (a) Income Tax Holiday. -

Vios, et al. v. Manuel Pantanggo,
Jr. (1) For six (6) years from commercial operation for pioneer
firms and four (4) years non-pioneer firms, new registered
G.R. No. 164015 - Ramon A. firms shall be fully exempt from income taxes levied by the
Albert v. Sandiganbayan, et al. National Government. Subject to such guidelines as may be

prescribed by the Board, the income tax exemption will be
G.R. No. 164580 - Norgie Cruz extended for another year in each of the following cases: x x x
y Castro v. People of the

(ii) utilization of indigenous raw materials at rates set by the
Philippines
Board; xxx
G.R. No. 164687 - SM Prime 10 Rollo, p. 93.

Holdings, Inc. v. Angela V.
11 Id. at 95.
Madayag
12 Id. at 99.
G.R. No. 165836 - Philippine
National Bank v. Adela Sia and 13 Id. at 103.
Robert Ngo
14 Id. at 114.
G.R. NOS. 166086-92 - Eleno
15 Id. at 115.
T. Regidor, Jr. et al. v. People of
the Philippines, et al. 16 Id. at 121.
G.R. No. 166260 - 17 Id. at 217-218.

Metropolitan Bank & Trust
18 Id. at 219-220.
Company v. The Hon. CA, et al.
19 Id. at 194-216.
G.R. No. 166973 - National
Power Corporation v. Benjamin 20 Id. at 262.-268.
ong Co
21 De La Cruz v. Ramiscal, G.R. No. 137882, 04 February 2005, 450
G.R. No. 167260 - The City of SCRA 449, 457.
Iloilo, Mr. Romeo V. Manikan etc.
22 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 2.
v. Smart Commuications Inc.

G.R. No. 167938 - Hanjin
Heavy Insdustries & Construction 24 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 5.
Co. Ltd. v. Hon. CA, et al.
25 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, pars. 6, 7.
G.R. No. 168433 - UCPB
General Insurance Co., Inc. v.
Aboitiz Shipping Corp., Eagle 27 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 8.
Express Lines, Damco Intermodal
Services, Inc. and Pimentel 28 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 4.
Customs Brokerage Co.
29 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 4
G.R. No. 168792 - Antonio B.

30 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 36.
Gunsi, Sr. v. The Hon.
Commissioners, Comelec and 31 Namuhe v. The Ombudsman, 358 Phil. 782, 788-789 (1998).
Datu Israel Sinsuat
32 SEC. 17. The President shall have control of all executive departments,
G.R. No. 168876 and G.R. NO. bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
172093 - Philippine Pasay Chung
33 Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Cement Manufacturers
Hua Academy & Emilio Ching v.
Servando L. Edpan/Servando L. Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 158540, 03 August 2005, 465
Edpan v. Phil. Pasay Chung Hua SCRA 532.
Academy, et al.
34 SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: x x x
G.R. No. 169352 - (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
Commissioner of Customs v. enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
Gelmart Industries Philippines, procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
Inc. the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
G.R. No. 169780 - Alfredo A. for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
Mendros, Jr. v. Mitsubishi Motors courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
Phils. Corp. modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
G.R. No. 170349 - Sps. disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Iglecerio Mahinay, et al. v. Hon.
35 Entitled "Prescribing Rules and Regulations Governing Appeals to the
Enrique C. Asis etc. et al./Sps.
Simeon Narrido, et al. v. Hon. Office of the President of the Philippines;" Issued on 12 February 1987.
Enrique C. Asis etc., et al.

36 SECTION 1. Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an appeal
to the Office of the President shall be taken within thirty (30) days from
G.R. No. 170669 - Mobilia
the receipt by the aggrieved party of the decision/resolution/order
Products Inc. v. Alan G.
complained of or appealed from. Said appeal shall be filed with the Office
Demecillo, Christopher S.
of the President, or with the Ministry/agency concerned, with copies
Daligdig, Manuelito V. Suson,
furnished to the affected parties and, if the appeal is filed with the Office
Marciano Suarez and Antonio
of the President, to the Ministry/agency concerned. If the appeal is
Montecillo, Jr.
directly filed with the Ministry/agency concerned, such Ministry/agency
shall, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, transmit the appeal to the
G.R. NOS. 171516-17 -
Office of the President, together with the records of the case.[Emphasis
Commissioner of Customs v.
supplied]
Court of Tax Appeals, Las Islas
Filipinas Food Corp. & Pat-Pro
Overseas Co. Ltd.
G.R. No. 171702 - Manila

Back to Home | Back to Main
Mining Corporation v. Miguel Tan
Doing Business Under the name
and style of Manila Mandarin
Marketing
G.R. No. 171891 - Hernania

'Lani' Lopez v. Gloria Umale-
Cosme
G.R. No. 172172 - Sps.

Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Ong Yu v.
Baltazar Pacleb, et al.
G.R. No. 172199 - Elizabeth D.

Palteng v. United Coconut
Planters Bank
G.R. No. 172628 - Coats

Manila Bay, Inc. v. Purita M.
Ortega (Represented by Alejandro
San Pedro, Jr.) and Marina A.
Montero
G.R. No. 173477 - People of

the Philippines v. Franco De
Guzman A.K.A. Francisco V. De
Guzman, Jr.

the Philippines v. Ruiz Garcia y
Ruiz
G.R. No. 173976 -

Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company, Inc. v. Eugenio Penafiel
etc.

the Philippines v. Danilo Sia y
Binghay

the Philippines v. Rolly Canares y
Almanares
G.R. No. 174244 - Mayor

Marcel S. Pan, etc. v. Yolanda O.
Pena, et al.
G.R. No. 174484 - The People

of the Philippines v. Felix Ortoa Y
Obia

the Philippines v. Marlon Dela
Cruz, et al.
G.R. No. 175048 - Excellent

Quality Apparel, Inc. v. Win Multi
Rich Buildenrs, Inc. etc.
G.R. No. 175220 - William C.

Dagan, et al. v. Philippine Racing
Commission (PHILRACOM),
Manila Jockey Club, Inc. and
Philippine Racing Club, Inc.

the Philippines v. Elmer Baldo Y
Santain

the Philippines v. Renato Espanol
G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips

Seafood (Philippines) Corporation
v. The Board of Investments
G.R. No. 175885 and G.R. NO.

176271 - Zenaida G. Mendoza v.
Engr. Eduardo Paule, et
al./Manuel Dela Cruz v. Engr.
Eduardo Paule, et al.
G.R. No. 175888, 176051 and

176222 - Suzette Nicolas y
Sombilon v. Alberto Romulo, et
al. / Jovito R. Salonga, et al. v.
Daniel Smith, et al. / Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan, et al. v.
President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, et al.
G.R. No. 175914 - Ruby

Shelter Builders & Reality Devt.
Corporation v. Hon. Pablo C.
Formaran III, et al.

the Philippines v. Samuel Algarme
Y Bonda & Rizaldy Gelle y
Biscocho
G.R. No. 176246 - Premier

Development Bank v. Central
Surety and Insurance Company,
Inc.
G.R. No. 176669 - Asset Pool

A (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, Lepanto Ceramics Inc. &
Guoco Industries, Inc.
G.R. No. 176947 - Gaudencio

M. Cordora v. Comelec, et al.
G.R. No. 177583 - Lourdes

Baltazar and Edison Baltazar v.
Jaime Chua y Ibarra
G.R. No. 177720 - Eliseo

Francisco, Jr. v. People of the
Philippines

the Philippines v. Roberto Abay y
Trinidad
G.R. No. 177828 - Annabelle

Dela Pena, et al. v. The Court of
Appeals, et al.

the Philippines v. Elizabeth
Cardenas
G.R. No. 178160 - Bases

Conversion and Development
Authority v. Commission on Audit
G.R. No. 178647 - General

Santos Coca-cola Plant Free
Workers Union-Tupas v. Coca-cola
Bottlers Phils., Inc. et al.
G.R. No. 178835 - Magis

Young Achievers' Learning
Center/Mrs. Violeta T. Carino v.
Adelaida P. Manalo
G.R. No. 178906 - Elvira T.

Arangote v. Sps. Martin and
Lourdes S. Maglunob and Romeo
Salido
G.R. No. 178913 - Manila

Electric Company v. Hsing Nan
Tannery Phils., Inc.
G.R. No. 179462 - Pedro C.

Consulta v. People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 179546 - Coca-Cola

Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Alan M.
Agito Regolo S. Oca III, et al.
G.R. No. 179556 - Concordia

Medel Gomez v. Corazon Medel
Alcantara
G.R. No. 179907 - Arlene N.

Lapasara v. People of the
Philippines

the Philippines v. Agustino
Tamolon, et al.
G.R. No. 180206 - The City

Government of Baguio City,
Represented by Reinaldo Bautista
Jr., City Mayor, et al. v. Atty. Brain
Masweng, etc., et al.
G.R. No. 180334 - Virgilio V.
Quileste v. People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 180551 - Erwin H.

Reyes v. NLRC, et al.
G.R. No. 180666 - Leodegario

R. Basocs, Jr. and Eleazar B.
Pagalilauan v. Engr. Jose B.
Taganahan and Office of the
Ombudsman
G.R. No. 180765 - Fort

Bonifacio Development Corp. v.
Manuel M. Domingo
G.R. No. 181837 - Omar M.

Solitario Ali v. Commission on
Elections, The Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Lanao Del Sur and
Mamintal A. Adiong, Jr.
G.R. No. 182057 - The People

of the Philippines v. Restituto C.
Valenzuela

the Philippines v. Wilfredo Encila
Y Sunga
G.R. No. 182426 - Zenaida

Polanco, et al. v. Carmen Cruz
Represented by her Attorney-in-
fact, Virgilio Cruz

the Philippines v. Elister
Basmayor y Grascilla
G.R. No. 182984 - Mariano

Nocom v. Oscar Camerino, et al.
G.R. No. 183270 - Rufina L.

Caliwan v. Mario Ocampo, et al.
G.R. No. 183385 - Evangelina

Masmud v. NLRC, et al.

the Philippines v. Richard Sulima
y Gallano
G.R. No. 184849 - Sps. PNP

Director Eliseo D. Dela Paz, et al.
v. Senate Committee, et al.
the Philippines v. Francisco Taruc
@ Taruc
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investment PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/11/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v.

ion v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court D…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of

[G.R. NO. 175787 : February 4, 2009]

PHILLIPS SEAFOOD (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD

Petitioner Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation is a domestic corporation

宴會佈置，花⾞佈置， Airport Subdivision, Bacolod City.

40 6 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 226, otherwise known as The Omnibus

of Executive Order No. 226. 10

On 06 January 2000, respondent BOI granted petitioner's application for registration

with an ITH for four years beginning January 2000. 11

On 22 June 2000, respondent BOI approved the registration of petitioner as a "New

74 with an ITH for four years beginning April 2000. 12

to 21 October 1999 or before petitioner's transfer to a "not less-developed area." 14

Petitioner wrote respondent BOI requesting for a reconsideration of its decision. 15

for reconsideration in an Order dated 14 March 2005. 18 Petitioner received a copy of

decisions of quasi-judicial agencies under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 19

SEARCH FOR MORE petitioner is entitled to the ITH.

free online registrations

The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right - it is a statutory

February-2009 Jurisprudence regulations to implement the provisions of E.O. No. 226. 22

registration, 26 the cancellation of registration or suspension of the enjoyment of

MTJ - Danilo David S. Mariano v.

Art. 50. Cause for Cancellation of Certificate of Authority or Payment of Fine. - A

registered enterprises or investors and government agencies under Article 7; 29 and

A.M. No. P-08-2521 Formerly

Enter to Win and Learn

Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2530- quasi-judicial agencies. 31

Parenthetically, Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 18 35 expressly recognizes an

G.R. No. 156101 - Heirs of

G.R. No. 163103 - Charlie (a) Income Tax Holiday. -

Albert v. Sandiganbayan, et al. National Government. Subject to such guidelines as may be

y Castro v. People of the

G.R. No. 164687 - SM Prime 10 Rollo, p. 93.

G.R. No. 166260 - 17 Id. at 217-218.

23 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 1.

G.R. No. 168792 - Antonio B.

Edpan v. Phil. Pasay Chung Hua SCRA 532.

Enrique C. Asis etc., et al.

G.R. No. 171702 - Manila

G.R. No. 171891 - Hernania

G.R. No. 172172 - Sps.

G.R. No. 172199 - Elizabeth D.

G.R. No. 172628 - Coats

G.R. No. 173477 - People of

G.R. No. 173480 - People of

G.R. No. 173976 -

G.R. No. 174059 - People of

G.R. No. 174065 - People of

G.R. No. 174244 - Mayor

G.R. No. 174484 - The People

G.R. No. 174658 - People of

G.R. No. 175048 - Excellent

G.R. No. 175220 - William C.

G.R. No. 175238 - People of

G.R. No. 175603 - People of

G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips

G.R. No. 175885 and G.R. NO.

G.R. No. 175888, 176051 and

G.R. No. 175914 - Ruby