(Part) 21 EN BANC | HERNANDO, J. COA v Pampilo | [ G.R. No. 188760, June 30, 2020 ]
(Part) 21 EN BANC | HERNANDO, J.
COA v Pampilo | [ G.R. No. 188760, June 30, 2020 ]
Factual Antecedents
READ: 🔗
https://pastepeso.com/d36820w1
Ruling
 |
| SHOP HERE |
A petition for declaratory relief is an action instituted by a person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.
 |
| SHOP HERE |
It must be filed before the breach or violation of the statute, deed or contract to which it refers; otherwise, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action.
 |
| SHOP HERE VOL. I VOL. II |
Thus, "[t]he only issue that may be raised in such [an action] is the question of construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute."
 |
| SHOP HERE |
It must be stressed that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach as such action is filed only for the purpose of securing an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a contract, deed or statute.
 |
| SHOP HERE! |
It cannot be availed of if the statute, deed or contract has been breached or violated because, in such a case, the remedy is for the aggrieved party to file the appropriate ordinary civil action in court.
 |
| Bye mosquito SHOP HERE |
Thus, the Court has consistently ruled that "[i]f adequate relief is available through another form or action or proceeding, the other action must be preferred over an action for declaratory relief."
 |
| SHOP HERE |
Worth mentioning at this point is the ruling in Sarmiento v. Hon. Capapas, where the Court explained that:
 |
| 7 in 1 Premium Maca Root Capsules na may Premium Ginseng, Tribulus, at Higit Pa 8050 mgEq - Natural Energy, Performance at Mood Support - 120 Capsules SHOP HERE! |
x x x "if an action for declaratory relief were to be allowed in this case, after a breach of the statute, the decision of the court in the action for declaratory relief would prejudge the action for violation of the barter law."
 |
| BBM BUWIS BAYARAN MO SHIRT SHOP HERE! |
"The institution of an action for declaratory relief after a breach of contract or statute, is objectionable on various grounds, among which is that it violates the rule on multiplicity of suits. If the case at bar were allowed for a declaratory relief, the judgment therein notwithstanding, another action would still lie against the importer respondent for violation of the barter law."
 |
| adult magazine SHOP HERE |
"So, instead of one case only before the courts in which all issues would be decided, two cases will be allowed, one being the present action for declaratory relief and a subsequent one for the confiscation of the importations as a consequence of the breach of the barter law."
 |
| SHOP HERE |
The impropriety of allowing an action for declaratory relief, after a breach of the law, can be seen in the very decision of the court itself, which is now subject of the appeal.
 |
| SHOP HERE |
 |
| SHOP HERE |
This confiscation directed by the court lies clearly beyond the scope and nature of an action for declaratory relief, as the judgment of confiscation goes beyond the issues expressly raised, and to that extent it is null and void.
 |
| SHOP HERE |
Similarly, in this case, an action for declaratory relief may no longer be allowed considering that private respondents are not merely asking for a declaration of their rights but are actually asking public respondent RTC to determine whether there was a violation of Section 11 of RA 8479, for which the Big 3 may be prosecuted and found criminally liable.
 |
| 2023 Bar Exam Quiz Cards Reviewer for ₱150 - ₱500. |
And since there is already an alleged breach, it cannot be the subject of a declaratory relief. Public respondent RTC therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the Amended Petition.
Under the doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country), the judiciary, as an agency of the State, has the supreme power and authority to intervene and to provide protection to persons non sui juris - those who because of their age or incapacity are unable to care and fend for themselves.
.jpeg) |
| ▶️ Watch here |
In Maynilad Water Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,87 this Court even went further and ruled that "Filipino consumers have become such persons of disability deserving protection by the State, as their welfare are being increasingly downplayed, endangered, and overwhelmed by business pursuits."
 |
| "The series that made thousands of lawyers." SHOP HERE |
This doctrine, however, cannot be applied in this case considering that Congress by enacting RA 8479 has already provided for the mechanism to protect the interest of the Filipino consumers. Public respondent RTC, therefore, cannot create a new panel of examiners to replace the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force as this goes against RA 8479.
LAW BOOK FLAGS / FILING TABS
 |
Bhe, para hindi kana malito, at madali mo siyang mahanap?  Lagyan natin ng color  ang buhay mo? Este ang books  mo? |
It is beyond the mandates of the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to open and examine the books of accounts of the Big 3 in the instant case.
 |
 Shop here: https://go.shopple.co/spm01iMore @ https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae Visit  "Bar techniques" : Abubot ni atorni |
Besides, it is beyond the mandates of the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to open and examine the books of accounts of the Big 3.
The COA was envisioned by our Constitutional framers to be a dynamic, effective, efficient and independent watchdog of the Government. It granted the COA the authority to determine whether government entities comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of government funds.
In the case of Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, et al., this Court enumerated and clarified the COA's jurisdiction over various governmental entities. In that case, this Court stated that the COA's audit jurisdiction extends to the following entities:
1. The government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities;
2. GOCCs with original charters;
3. GOCCs without original charters;
4. Constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under the Constitution; and
5. Non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to the COA for audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.
 |
| SHOP HERE |
COA's authority to examine and audit the accounts of government and, to a certain extent, non-governmental entities, is consistent with Section (Sec.) 29 (1) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445 otherwise known as the Auditing Code of the Philippines, which grants the COA visitorial authority over the following non-governmental entities:
 |
Watch HERE
|
 |
| SHOP HERE |
Meanwhile, in Engr. Feliciano v. [COA], this Court ruled that regardless of the nature of the corporation, the determining factor of COA's audit jurisdiction is government ownership or control of the corporation. In this case, the Court found that local water districts (LWDs), are owned and controlled by the government, as evidenced from the fact that "there [was] no private party involved in their creation, ownership of the national or local government of their assets, the manner of appointment of their board of directors and their employees' being subject to civil service laws."
 |
| SHOP HERE |
The Court also noted as an indication of the government's control, the latter's power to appoint LWD directors, to provide for their compensation, as well as the Local Water Utilities Administration's power to require LWDs to merge or consolidate their facilities or operations.
 |
| SHOP HERE MORE designs HERE |
In Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. [COA], the Court, in arriving at the conclusion that BSP is subject to the COA's audit jurisdiction, examined its charter, Commonwealth Act No. 111, and the provisions of the same concerning BSP's governing body, its classification and relationship with the National Government, specifically as an attached agency of then Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), as well as its sources of funds.
 |
| Now is the time to upgrade your study table and establish a study environment. SHOP HERE! LZD: https://s.lazada.com.ph/s.6KeIS?cc SHP: https://go.shopple.co/spn8co |
Without a doubt, the case of the Big 3 would not fall under the audit jurisdiction of COA. They are not public entities nor are they non governmental entities receiving financial aid from the government.
 |
| No more overheating! SHOP HERE! LZD: https://s.lazada.com.ph/s.6KTde?cc SHP: https://go.shopple.co/spn8bx |
As to Pasang Masda's reliance on the case of Meralco v. Lualhati, this is misplaced.
 |
| Phone screen cleaner SHOP HERE! |
That case involves a situation different from the present case as what was in issue therein was the authority of the COA under Section 22 of the Administrative Code of 1987 to examine the books, records and accounts of public utilities in connection with the fixing of rates for the purpose of determining franchise taxes. Thus, it cannot be used as precedent to justify the orders of public respondent RTC.
 |
Save time and write with confidence. QuillBot is a paraphrasing and summarizing tool that helps millions of students and professionals cut their writing time by more than half using state-of-the-art AI to rewrite any sentence, paragraph, or article. With respect to the BIR, its Commissioner is authorized to examine books, paper, record, or other data of taxpayers but only to ascertain the correctness of any return, or in making a return when none was made, or in determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax, or in collecting such liability, or evaluating the person's tax compliance. |
 |
| SHOP HERE The BOC, on the other hand, is authorized to audit or examine all books, records, and documents of importers necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting the proper duties and taxes. Since there are no taxes or duties involved in this case, the BIR and the BOC likewise have no power and authority to open and examine the books of accounts of the Big 3. |
 |
| SHOP HERE |
Pasang Masda failed to satisfy all the requirements for intervention.
As regards the issue of intervention, Section 1,92 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court requires that: (1) the movant must have a legal interest in the matter being litigated; (2) the intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties; and (3) the claim of the intervenor must not be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.
The right to intervene, however, is not an absolute right as the granting of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may only be allowed if the movant is able to satisfy all the requirements.
Besides, even if the Court relaxes the definition of "legal interest" in the instant case, the granting of the motion to intervene would still be improper because the subject matter of the petition-in-intervention, just like the petition, cannot be the subject of an action for declaratory relief Since an intervention is not an independent action but is ancillary and supplement to the main case, the dismissal of the main case would necessarily include the dismissal of the ancillary case.
FOLLOW US! 🛒 https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae |
Comments
Post a Comment