admin law digest (29-31)

8/12/2019 Admin Law Digest (29-31)

1/3

G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989SOLID HOMES, INC., petitioner,vs.TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS:

Respondent alleged that petitioner contracted to sell to her a subdivision lot for the agreed price ofP28,080.00, and that she had already paid Solid Homes the total amount of P 38,949.87 in monthlyinstallments and interests. Solid Homes executed a deed of sale over the land but failed to deliver thecertificate of title despite her repeated demands because, as it appeared later, that Solid Homes hadmortgaged the property in bad faith to a financing company. Payawal then filed a complaint in the RTC

asking for delivery of the title to the lot or, alternatively, the return of all the amounts paid by her plusinterest. She also claimed moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.

Solid Homes moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that RTC had no jurisdiction, this beingvested in the National Housing Authority (NHA) under PD No. 957. However, RTC denied the motion

and rendered judgment in favor of respondent and Solid Homes was ordered to deliver to the title to the

land or, failing this, to refund to the sum of P 38,949.87 plus interest from 1975 and until the full amountwas paid. Respondent was also awarded P5,000.00 moral damages, P5,000.00 exemplary damages,P10,000.00 attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit.

RTCs decision was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not NHA has jurisdiction to try the case and the competence to award damages.

HELD:

The Court reversed the decision of the RTC and held that NHA has the jurisdiction to try the case. PDNo. 1344, amending PD No. 957 vested the exclusive power to NHA to hear and decide "claimsinvolving refund and any other claimsfiled by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against the

project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman." The phrase "any other claims" is, sufficiently broadto include any and all claims which are incidental to or a necessary consequence of the claims/casesspecifically included in the grant of jurisdiction to the National Housing Authority

The Court also held that Statutes conferring powers on the administrative agencies must be liberally

construed to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the legislative purpose.Administrative bodies are specialized in the particular fields assigned to them, they can deal with the

problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or the courts

of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers inwhat is now not unreasonably called the fourth department of the government.


2/3

G.R. No. 160703 September 23, 2005GMA NETWORK, INC.,Petitioners,vs.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PILIPINO CABLECORPORATION and PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC.,Respondent.

Facts:

GMA filed before the RTC a complaint for damages against respondents alleging that respondents

engaged in unfair competition when the cable companies arbitrarily re-channeled petitioner's cabletelevision broadcast on February 1, 2003, in order to arrest and destroy its upswing performance in thetelevision industry.

GMA argued that respondents were able to perpetrate such unfair business practice through a common

ownership and interlocking businesses. SkyCable and Sun Cable are wholly-owned subsidiaries of SkyVision Corporation (Sky Vision') which is allegedly controlled by Lopez, Inc. On the other hand, Home

Cable is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilink Communications Corporation (Unilink'), which is ownedby Mediaquest Holdings, Inc., a company controlled by the Pension Trust Fund of the PLDT Employees(PLDT Group').

Pursuant to a Master Consolidation Agreement, the ownership, rights and interests in Sky Vision and

Unilink were purportedly placed under a holding company known as 'Beyond Cable', 66.5 % of which isowned by the Benpres Group, composed of Lopez Inc., Benpres Holdings and ABS-CBN, while 33.5%thereof is owned by the PLDT Group. As a result of this business combination, respondents havecornered at least 71% of the total cable television market in Mega Manila. They are thus able to dictatethe signal transmission, channel position, and the airing of shows, programs, and broadcast of non-cable

companies like ABS-CBN and GMA, which the law requires them to carry.

GMA alleged that the re-channeling of its cable television broadcast resulted in damage to its business

operations.

Issues:

Should the complaint be adjudicated under the jurisdiction of the trial court or the NTC?

Held:

The Court ruled that regular courts are possessed of general jurisdiction over actions for damages, itwould nonetheless be proper for the courts to yield its jurisdiction in favor of an administrative body

when the determination of underlying factual issues requires the special competence or knowledge of thelatter. In this era of clogged court dockets, administrative boards or commissions with special knowledge,experience and capability to promptly hear and determine disputes on technical matters or intricatequestions of facts, subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, are well-nigh

indispensable. Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, therefore, the

unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former.

The regulation of ownership of television and cable television companies is lwithin the exclusive concernof the NTC, pursuant to its broader regulatory power of ensuring and promoting a 'larger and more

effective use of communications, radio and television broadcasting facilities' in order that the publicinterest may well be served. The NTC is mandated to maintain effective competition among privateentities engaged in the operation of public service communications. It is also the agency tasked to grant

certificates of authority to cable television operators, provided that the same 'does not infringe on thetelevision and broadcast markets.


3/3

G.R. No. 84895 May 4, 1989

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, JOSE D. CAMPOS, JR.,petitioner-intervenor,vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, TEODORO Q. PEA, GORGONIOMACARIOLA, ORLANDO PACIENCIA, JESUS TUPALAR SEVERINO DELA CRUZ, and FECORTEZO, respondents.

Facts:

Petitioners are seeking for the dropping of Jose D. Campos Jr., being the son of Jose Campos, as partydefendant from the complaint seeking to recover the ill-gotten wealth during the regime of Pres. Marcos

on the grounds that he had voluntarily surrendered any share in his name on any of the corporations andthat he was entitled to the immunity granted by the PCCG pursuant to Executive Order No. 14 given toMr. Jose Y. Campos and his family.

Respondent Court denied the motions on the ground that PCCG does not have the power to grant civilimmunity and that even if it did have, the grant of immunity has not been shown to cover the transactionsinvolving the corporations and or properties for which Jose D. Campos, Jr., is now sought to be held

accountable,

Issues:

Whether or not the PCCG can validly grant civil immunity to petitioner Campos Jr.

Ruling:

Yes. The SC ruled that although Executive Order No. 14 only specifically mentioned the grant ofimmunity only in criminal prosecutions, legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the

statute as a whole.

EO 14 authorized PCCG to file criminal and civil cases against persons suspected of havingacquired ill-gotten wealth and its vital task involves the just and expeditious recovery of such ill-gotten

wealth to be used to hasten national economic recovery. Undoubtedly, this resolution embodies acompromise agreement between the PCGG on one hand and Jose Y. Campos on the other. Hence, in

exchange for the voluntary surrender of the ill-gotten properties acquired by the Marcoses, which were inJose Campos' control, the latter and his family were given full immunity in both civil and criminal

prosecutions. In the absence of an express prohibition, the rule on amicable settlements and/or

compromises on civil cases under the Civil Code is applicable to PCGG cases. This is the properinterpretation of the law in the light of the purposes enumerated in Executive Order No. 14, to wit: the

vital task of the Commission involves the just and expeditious recovery of such ill-gotten wealth in orderthat the finds assets and other properties may be used to hasten national economic recovery.

Since petitioner-intervenor Jose Campos, Jr. is a legitimate son of Jose Y. Campos, the fullimmunity granted to the latter and his family must also extend to the former.

admin law digest (29-31)

Documents