1. Luzon Development Bank vs.

Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees

Facts:

Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and the Association of Luzon Development arose an arbitration.
At a conference, the parties agreed on the submission of their respective Position Papers. The
(ALDBE). The Voluntary Arbitrator received ALDBE's Position Paper on the other hand, LDB failed
to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do
so.

In 1995, without the position paper of LDB, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision
finding the Bank has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the
Memorandum of Agreement on promotion.

Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeks to set aside the decision of the
Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same. In the labor law context,
arbitration is the reference of a labor dispute to an impartial third person for determination
based on evidence and arguments presented by such parties who have bound themselves to
accept the decision of the arbitrator as final and binding.

Arbitration may be classified, based on the obligation on which it is based, as either compulsory
or voluntary. Article 261 of the Labor Code accordingly provides for exclusive original
jurisdiction of such voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators over (1) the interpretation or
implementation of the CBA and (2) the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies. Article 262 authorizes them, but only upon agreement of the parties, to exercise
jurisdiction over other labor disputes.

Issue: Whether or not the issue of voluntary arbitration is under the jurisdiction of the
voluntary Arbitrator.

Ruling:
Yes. The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental
power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls, therefore,
within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in Sec. 9 of B.P. 12

An "instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency. Thus, the terms governmental

"agency" or "instrumentality" are synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by
which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function is performed.13 The
word "instrumentality," concerning a state, contemplates an authority to which the state
delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function. An individual person,
like an administrator or executor, is a judicial instrumentality in the settling of an estate, in the
same manner that a sub-agent appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality of the
court,
and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an instrumentality of the state.

2. Iron and Steel Authority vs. CA

Facts:

Petitioner Iron and Steel Authority ("ISA") was created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 272 on
1973 to develop and promote the iron and steel industry in the Philippines. The objectives of
the ISA are to strengthen the iron and steel industry of the Philippines and to expand the
domestic and export. The power of ISA is to initiate expropriation of land required for basic iron
and steel facilities for subsequent resale and/or lease to the companies involved if it is shown
that such use of the State's power is necessary to implement the construction of capacity which
is needed for the attainment of the objectives of the Authority.

P.D. No. 272 initially created petitioner ISA for a term of five (5) years counting from 1973.1
When ISA's original term expired on 1978, its term was extended for another ten (10) years by
Executive Order. The National Steel Corporation ("NSC") then a wholly owned subsidiary of the
National Development Corporation which is itself an entity wholly owned by the National
Government, embarked on an expansion program embracing, among other things, the
construction of an integrated steel mill in Iligan City. The construction of such a steel mill was
considered a priority and a major industrial project of the Government.

A portion of public land was occupied by a non-operational chemical fertilizer plant owned by
Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. The NSC negotiated with MCFC which failed. ISA commenced
eminent domain proceedings against MCFC in the RTC. After gaining favor from court ISA took
over the possession and control of the land occupied by MCFC.

The case proceeded to trial. While the trial was ongoing, however, the statutory existence of
petitioner ISA expired on 1988. MCFC then filed a motion to dismiss, contending that no valid
judgment could be rendered against ISA which had ceased to be a juridical person. Petitioner
ISA filed its opposition to this motion.

Issue: Whether or not ISA acting on behalf of the govt has proper to authority to exercise power
of eminent domain and appropriation on the possession of the land of MCFC.

Ruling: No. The constitutional requirement of "public use" or "public purpose" is not present in
the instant case, and that the indispensable element of just compensation is also absent. The
property to be expropriated is not for public use or benefit but for the use and benefit of NSC, a
government controlled private corporation engaged in private business and for profit.
3. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. City of Bacolod

Facts:

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) appealed on a decision to pay franchise and
business taxes imposed by the City of Bacolod. PLDT is a holder of a legislative franchise and is
required to pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent of all its gross receipts.
The City of Bacolod imposes a franchise tax on PLDT, and PLDT complies and pays the tax from
1994 to the third quarter of 1998.

In 1998, the Department of Finance issued a ruling stating that PLDT is exempt from franchise
and business taxes imposed by local government units.

Based on this ruling, PLDT stops paying the franchise tax to Bacolod City. The City of Bacolod
withholds the issuance of a Mayor's Permit to PLDT until it pays its franchise tax liability. PLDT
files a petition in the Regional Trial Court seeking exemption from the payment of local franchise
and business taxes and a refund of overpaid taxes.

Issue:
Whether PLDT is exempt from paying franchise and business taxes imposed by the City of
Bacolod.

Ruling:
The court rules against PLDT and holds them liable for the taxes.

The court interprets Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7925, also known as the "most-favored-
treatment" clause, and concludes that it does not grant blanket tax exemption to all
telecommunications entities. The court emphasizes that tax exemptions are highly disfavored
and must be expressed in clear language in the statute. The court rejects PLDT's argument that
the exemption granted to other telecommunications companies, such as Smart and Globe,
should apply to PLDT.

The court states that the grant of tax exemption to Smart and Globe does not automatically
extend the same exemption to PLDT. The court further explains that the Bureau of Local
Government Finance is not an administrative agency whose findings of fact are given weight
and deference in courts.
4. CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, INC., vs. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO and PRISCILLA T.
IGNACIO

Doctrine: The extent to which an administrative entity may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial
powers depends largely, if not wholly on the provisions of the statute creating or
empowering such agency. In the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned must
commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such
contracts. One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the interpretation
of contracts and the determination of private rights thereunder is no longer a uniquely judicial
function, exercisable only by our regular courts.

Facts:

On 1998, the petitioner Christian General Assembly (CGA) entered into a Contract to Sell the Lot
4 subdivision with the respondents who are the registered owners and developers of Villa
Priscilla Subdivision in Bulacan. Under the Contract to Sell, CGA would pay ₱2,373,000.00 for
the subject property on an installment basis in 3 years.

On 2000, the parties agreed to amend the contract to sell and extend the payment period for 5
years . According to CGA, it religiously paid the monthly installments until its administrative
pastor discovered that the title covering the subject property suffered from fatal flaws and
defects. CGA learned that the subject property was actually part of two consolidated lots that
the respondent acquired from Adriano and Sision whose properties are under RA 6657 which
DAR authorized l to retain the farm lots previously awarded to the tenant-beneficiaries,
including Lot 2-F previously awarded to Adriano, and Lot 2-G Bsd- 04-000829 awarded to Sison.
On appeal, the Office of the President and the CA upheld the DAR Order. CGA claimed that the
respondents fraudulently concealed the fact that the subject property was part of a property
under litigation; thus, the Contract to Sell was a rescissible contract under Article 1381 of the
Civil Code. CGA asked the trial court to rescind the contract; order the respondents to return the
amounts already paid.

Respondents insist that since CGA’s case involves the sale of a subdivision lot, it falls under the
HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction

Issue: Whether or not the HLURB has jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade on the
subject land.

Ruling: Yes. Paragraph (b), Section 1 of PD No. 1344, which reads: SEC. 1. In the exercise of its
functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided
for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision
lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.