CASE NO.

11
ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC., vs. AMORES, JOHNSON & JOHNSON
[PHILIPPINES], INC. and the BOARD OF INVESTMENTS
G.R. No. L – 58292, July 23, 1987

Facts: Adamson & Adamson Inc. was organized on April 05, 1954 has been actually engaged
in the “manufacture, sale and exportation of absorbent cotton wool products, surgical dressing,
bandages, medicinal, pharmaceutical products, chemical, chemical products, sanitary towels
and other articles and commodities. Similarly, since its organizations on February 17, 1956,
Johnson & Johnson [Philippines] Inc.to manufacture, import, export, buy, sell or otherwise
acquire, either at wholesale or retail, pharmaceutical drugs, toiletry, hygiene products and
related products of every kind, and chemical compositions of all kinds and uses.

Sometime on March 17, 1980, Adamson filed in the Board of Investments a petition praying for
the issuance of stop and cease order of Johnson alleging prior to its expanded field of business
and economic activities to areas in which it was not licensed and in which it was not actually
engaged as at the effectivity of Republic Act Nos. 5186 [Investment Incentives Act] and 5455
[Foreign Investment Act] without first obtaining from the Board of Investments the corresponding
certificates of authority after prior publication and public notices.

Pursuant to the petition filed by the Adamson & Adamson, Inc. against Johnson & Johnson
[Phil.] Inc. the BOI finds that the expansion of business in which Johnson & Johnson [Phil.] Inc.
was actually and lawfully engaged in as of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 5455 and the same
with finance by internally generated funds, hence do not need prior BOI approval.

On November 20, 1980, Adamson filed a petition in the Court of First Instance seeking judicial
relief from the BOI decision pursuant to Section 8 to Republic Act No. 5455 [Civil Case No.
136282]. Adamson affirmed that its right to be heard and to present evidence on the merits of its
prayer for a permanent stop and desist order was violated by the BOI’s letter – decision
dismissing the petition. Petitioner prayed for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining Johnson from engaging in its expanded business activities.

Lower court issued an order that no extreme urgency for the issuance of a preliminary injunction
prayed by the Adamson.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the decision of the Board of Investments in dismissing the petition
violated the right of Adamson & Adamson Inc. to be heard and acquire procedural due
process.

Decisions: Based on the issue raised, petitioner’s right to procedural due process was not
violated by the Board of Investments due to the following reason:

 On Section 4, Rule IV of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No.
5455, the lower court ruled that BOI do not need to issue a corresponding certificate of
authority to Johnson because on September 30, 1968, Johnson was actually engaged
 in the manufacture and marketing of absorbent cotton, sanitary tampons and disposable
diapers therefore its alleged expanding business activities was legal.
 The notice on May 14, 1980 specified the petitioner’s prayer to stop and desist order.
Inevitably, it is immaterial that said notice was sent before Johnson filed its answer to
the petition and there was yet no joinder of issues considering that the proceeding was
before an administrative tribunal where technicalities that should be observed in a
regular court may be dispensed with.
 The petitioner was given the opportunity to present its case and its prayer to stop and
desist order. As clearly annunciated in the minutes of the hearing, BOI proceeding was
conducted for the purpose of hearing the arguments and receiving evidence of the
parties “to resolve the case expeditiously”.
 Petitioner’s right to procedural due process was not violated when hearing was
conducted before a director of the BOI. The requirements of a fair hearing do not
mandate that the actual taking of testimony or the presentation of evidence be before
the same officer who will make the decision on the case.

The BOI decisions having been arrived with due regard to the parties’ right to procedural due
process, petitioner’s contention in findings for Johnson’s legally engaged in as of it effectivity of
Republic Act 5455, does not merit further consideration. Suffice it to state that whatever
objections petitioner may have on the validity and correctness of the BOI decision may be
threshed out in the lower court.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed and the lower court is ordered to
expedite the disposition of Civil Case No. 136282 for judicial relief.

NAMES: ORAL PRESENTATION (30) WRITTEN (30)

Dela Cruz, Ashley Yvan L.

Ramos, Yna Cecille Grace G.