Shipside Incorporated vs.
The Court of Appeals
352 SCRA 334, February 20, 2011
Doctrine:
Prescription of action does not run against the State: it is not
applicable to artificial bodies created by the State for special purpose.
Facts:
OCTs were issued in favor of Rafael Galvez over four parcels of
land. Lots 1 and 4 were conveyed by Galvez to Mamaril, who later sold the
same Order declaring his OCT null and void. Lepanto sold Lots 1 and 4 to
herein petitioner.
Galvez filed a Motion for Reconsideration against the Order declaring
his OCT null and void. The motion was denied. On appeal, the CA ruled in
favor of the Republic and issued a writ of execution. The order was not
executed. After twenty-five long years, the Sol Gen filed a complaint for
revival of judgment and cancellation of titles.
Issue:
Whether or not the Republic may still for revival of judgment.
Held:
NO. While it is true that prescription does not run against the State,
the same may not be invoked by the government in this case since it is no
longer interested in the subject matter. While Camp Wallance may have
belonged to the government at the time Galvez title was ordered cancelled,
the same no longer holds true today.
RA 7277 created Bases Conversion and Development Authority
(BSDA). With the transfer of Camp Wallance to the BCDA, the government
has no longer a right or protect.
The rule that prescription does not run against the State does not
apply to corporations or artificial bodies created by the State for special
purposes, it being said that when the title of the Republic has been
divested, its grantees, although artificial bodies of its own creation, are in
the same category as ordinary persons.
Philsa International Placement and Services Corp. vs. The Hon.
Secretary of Labor and Employment - 356 SCRA 174, April 4, 201
Doctrine:
The ruling on money claims is distinct from administrative sanctions
that may be imposed.
Facts:
Philsa is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of
workers for overseas employment. Private respondents were recruited and
deployed in Saudi Arabia. While in Saudi Arabia, private respondents were
made to sign a second contract, reducing their benefits and privileges.
They refused to sign the third contract increasing their work hours. As a
result, they were terminated and repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon their arrival, they demanded from Philsa the return of their
placement fees and payment of their salaries for the unexpired portion of
the contract. Philsa refused, thus private respondents filed a case before
the POEA.
On the aspects of the case involving money claims and illegal
dismissal, a decision was rendered in favor of the complainants (private
respondents herein), which attained finality after the petition to review on
certiorari was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
In a separate Order, the POEA found the petitioner guilty of contract
substitution and unlawful deduction.
Issue:
Whether or not administrative sanction may still be imposed after the
finality of a Decision of the NLRC involving money claims.
Held:
Yes. The Administrative sanctions may are distinct and separate from
the money claims of the respondents, may still be properly imposed by the
POEA.
As such, the fact that petitioner has been absolved by final judgment
for the payment of the money claim does not mean that it is likewise
absolved from the administrative sanctions which may be imposed as a
result of the unlawful deduction or withholding of private respondents
salary. The POEA thus committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding
petitioner administratively liable of unlawful deduction/withholding of salary.
Republic vs. Express Telecommunication Co. Inc.
373 SCRA 316 January 15, 2002
Doctrine:
The NTC has the sole authority to issue Certificates of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the installation, operation, and
maintenance of communications facilities and services, radio
communications systems, telephone and telegraph systems.
Facts:
In 1992, Bayantel filed an application with the NTC for a CPCN, to
install , operate and maintain a digital Cellular Mobile Telephone System/
Service (CMTS) with prayer for Provision Authority (PA). Hearings were
conducted but because of unavailability of frequencies, the case was
archived before Bayantel could complete the presentation of its evidence.
In1998, NTC re-allocated additional frequencies for CMTS service.
Bayantel filed an ex-parte motion to revive. Extelcom filed its
opposition. NTC issued an Order granting in favor of Bayantel a
provisional authority to operate CMTS service
The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Order of the NTC.
Issue:
Whether or not the order of the NTC grating Bayantel a provisional
authority to operate a CMTS is in substantial compliance with NTC Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Held:
Yes. The NTC has the sole authority to issue Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the installation, operation, and
maintenance of communications facilities and services, radio
communications systems, telephone and telegraph systems.
In granting Bayantel the provisional authority to operate a CMTS, the
NTC applied Rule 15 Section3 of its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure,
which provides:
Section 3. Provisional Relief. --- Upon the filling of an application,
complaint or petition or at any stage thereafter, the Board may grant on
motion of the Pleader or on its own initiative, the based on the pleading,
together with the affidavits and supporting documents attached
thereto,XXX
The NTC is clothed with sufficient discretion to ac on matters solely
within its competence. Clearly spelled out is the Need to Provide enhanced
competition and the requirement for more landlines and
telecommunications facilities in unserved areas in the country. On both
scores, therefore, there was sufficient showing that the NTC acted well
within its jurisdiction and in pursuance of its avowed duties when it allowed
the revived of Bayantels application.
