Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, et al., G.R.

No. 176579, June 28, 2011

FACTS:
This is a petition to nullify the sale of shares of stock of Philippine
Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC) by the government of the
Republic of the Philippines, acting through the Inter-Agency Privatization
Council (IPC), to Metro Pacific Assets Holdings, Inc. (MPAH), an affiliate of First
Pacific Company Limited (First Pacific), a Hong Kong-based investment
management and holding company and a shareholder of the Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). The petitioner questioned the sale on
the ground and that it violates Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution which limits foreign ownership of the capital of a public utility to
not more than 40%.
ISSUE:
Does the term capital in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution
refer to the total common shares only, or to the total outstanding capital
stock (combined total of common and non-voting preferred shares) of PLDT,
a public utility?
RULING:
[The Court partly granted the petition and held that the term capital
in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to shares of stock
entitled to vote in the election of directors of a public utility, i.e., to the total
common shares in PLDT.]
Considering that common shares have voting rights which translate to
control, as opposed to preferred shares which usually have no voting rights,
the term capital in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to
common shares. However, if the preferred shares also have the right to vote
in the election of directors, then the term capital shall include such
preferred shares because the right to participate in the control or
management of the corporation is exercised through the right to vote in the
election of directors. In short, the term capital in Section 11, Article XII of
the Constitution refers only to shares of stock that can vote in the election of
directors.

[Thus, the Respondent Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange

Commission was DIRECTED by the Court to apply the foregoing definition of
the term capital in determining the extent of allowable foreign ownership
in respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, and if there is a
violation of Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, to impose the
appropriate sanctions under the law.]
Briccio Ricky A. Pollo v. Karina Constantino-David, G.R. No.
181881, October 18, 2011
FACTS:
This case involves a search of office computer assigned to a
government employee who was then charged administratively and was
eventually dismissed from the service. The employees personal files stored
in the computer were used by the government employer as evidence of his
misconduct.
On January 3, 2007, an anonymous letter-complaint was received by
the respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chairperson alleging that the
chief of the Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division of Civil Service
Commission Regional Office No. IV (CSC-ROIV) has been lawyering for public
officials with pending cases in the CSC. Chairperson David immediately
formed a team with background in information technology and issued a
memorandum directing them to back up all the files in the computers found
in the [CSC-ROIV] Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions. The team
proceeded at once to the CSC-ROIV office and backed up all files in the hard
disk of computers at the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) and
the Legal Services Division. Chairperson David thus issued a Show-Cause
Order requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation or counter-affidavit
within five days from notice.
Petitioner filed his Comment, denying that he is the person referred to
in the anonymous letter-complaint. The CSC found prima facie case against
the petitioner and charged him with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A. No. 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees). Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration, to
Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without basis having
preceded from an illegal search, which is beyond the authority of the CSC
Chairman, such power pertaining solely to the court. The CSC denied this
omnibus motion.
ISSUE:

Was the search conducted on petitioners office computer and the

copying of his personal files without his knowledge and consent alleged as
a transgression on his constitutional right to privacy lawful?
RULING:
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA, which
in turn upheld the CSC resolution dismissing the petitioner from service. The
High Tribunal held that the search on petitioners office computer and the
copying of his personal files were both LAWFUL and DID NOT VIOLATE his
constitutional right to privacy.
PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, INC. v LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY608 SCRA 442CARPIO, J. 18 December 2009

FACTS:
Petitioner Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. (petitioner) is a company engaged in the
business of laundry services. On 5 September 2001, the Environmental Quality
Management Division of Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) conducted
wastewater sampling of petitioners effluent which showed non-compliance. After a
series of subsequent water sampling, PSL still failed to conform to the regulatory
standards. Another wastewater sampling which was conducted on 5 June 2002, in
response to the 17 May 2002 request for re-sampling received by LLDA, finally showed
compliance with the effluent standard in all parameters. On 16 September 2002, LLDA
issued an Order to Pay indicating therein that the penalty should be imposed from the
date of initial sampling to the date there quest for re-sampling was received by the
Authority Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the LLDA denied.
ISSUE:

WON the grant of implied power to LLDA to impose penalties violate the rule on
non-delegation of legislative powers.
RULING:
LLDAs power to impose fines is not unrestricted. It was only after the
investigation finding the petitioner failing to meet the established water and effluent
quality standards that the LLDA imposed the penalty of P 1,000.00 per day. The P
1,000 penalty per day is in accordance with the amount of penalty prescribed under
PD 984.

RODOLFO G. NAVARRO et al. versus EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO

ERMITA
G.R. No. 180050
February 10, 2010
FACTS:
Petitioners Navarro, Bernal, and Medina brought this petition for
certiorari under Rule65 to nullify Republic Act No. 9355, An Act Creating the
Province of Dinagat Islands, for being unconstitutional. Based on the NSO
2000 Census of Population, the population of the Province of Dinagat Islands
is 106,951. A special census was afterwards conducted by the Provincial
Government of Surigao del Norte which yielded a population count of
371,576 inhabitants with average annual income for calendar year 20022003 of P82,696,433.23 and with a land area of 802.12 square kilometers as
certified by the Bureau of Local Government Finance. Under Section 461 of
R.A. No. 7610, The Local Government Code, a province may be created if it
has an average annual income of not less than P20 million based on 1991
constant prices as certified by the Department of Finance, and a population

of not less than 250,000 inhabitants as certified by the NSO, or a contiguous

territory of at least 2,000 square kilometers as certified by the Lands
Management Bureau. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises
two or more islands or is separated by a chartered city or cities, which do not
contribute to the income of the province.
Thereafter, the bill creating the Province of Dinagat Islands was
enacted into law and a plebiscite was held subsequently yielding to 69,943
affirmative votes and 63,502 negative. With the approval of the people from
both the mother province of Surigao del Norte and the Province of Dinagat
Islands, Dinagat Islands was created into a separate and distinct province.
Respondents argued that exemption from the land area requirement is
germane to the purpose of the Local Government Code to develop self-reliant
political and territorial subdivisions. Thus, the rules and regulations have the
force and effect of law as long as they are germane to the objects and
purposes of the law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the provision in Sec. 2, Art. 9 of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (IRR) valid.
RULING:
The rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions
of the basic law. The Constitution requires that the criteria for the creation of
a province, including any exemption from such criteria, must all be written in
the Local Government Code. The IRR went beyond the criteria prescribed by
Section 461 of the Local Government Code when it
added the italicized portion The land area requirement shall not apply
where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands. The
extraneous provision cannot be considered as germane to the purpose of the

law as it already conflicts with the criteria prescribed by the law in creating a
territorial subdivision. Thus, there is no dispute that in case of discrepancy
between the basic law and the rules and regulations implementing the said
law, the basic law prevails.

PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR. v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, et al.
G.R. No. 196425, EN BANC (PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)
FACTS:
In 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 13
(E.O 13). Abolishing the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and
transferring its functions to the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division of the

Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (IAD-ODESLA).

Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima later on filed before the IAD-ODESLA a
complaint affidavit for grave misconduct against Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.
(PICHAY), Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA) for the purchase by the LWUA of shares of stock of
Express Savings Bank, Inc. In defense, Pichay filed a Motion to Dismiss Ex
Abundante AD Cantelam manifesting that a case involving the same
transaction is already pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. Alleging
that no other plan, speedy and adequate remedy is available, Pichay has
resorted to the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the
constitutionality of E.O 13.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not E.O 13 is constitutional
2. Whether or not there is usurpation of legislative power to appropriate
public funds in view of such reorganization.
3. Whether or not the IAD-ODESLA encroaches upon the powers and
duties of the Ombudsman
4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 13 violates Pichays right to due
process and the equal protection of the laws.
Ruling:
E.O 13 is constitutional
Section 31 of Executive Order No. 292 (E.O 292), otherwise known as
the Administrative Code of 1987, vests in the President the continuing

authority to reorganize the offices under him to achieve simplicity,

economy and efficiency. The Office of the President must, in order to
remain effective and efficient, be capable of being shaped and reshaped
by the President in the manner he deems fit to carry out his directives and
policies.
Clearly, the abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a
division specially created within the ODESLA is properly within the
prerogative of the President under his continuing delegated legislative
authority to recognize his own office. Since both of these offices belong to
the Office of the President Proper, the reorganization by the way of
abolishing the PAGC and transferring its functions to the IAD-ODESLA is
allowable under Section 31 (1) of E.O 292.

There is no usurpation of the legislative power to appropriate public

funds
The IAD-ODESLA does not encroach upon the powers and duties of

the Ombudsman
Executive Order No. 13 does not violate Pichays right to due
process and the equal protection of the laws