ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2004 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 103055-56 - January 26, 2004 - ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 103055-56 - January 26, 2004 - ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 106615, 108591, 109452, 109978 & 139379 - January 15, 2004 - SPOUSES ELIGIO P. MALLARI and MARCELINA I. MALLARI, Petitioners, v. IGNACIO ARCEGA, PERCASIO CATACUTAN, BEN GARCIA, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, MARIETA JACINTO, CELESTINO MAGAT, VICENTE MALLARI

  • G.R. Nos. 114967-68 : January 26, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CRISPIN BILLABER y MATBANUA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 118027 - January 29, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RICARDO BALATAZO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 118030 - January 15, 2004 - PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORP., Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and AZUCAR SHIPPING CORP., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 120384 - January 13, 2004 - PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE INFRASTRUCTURES, INC., PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE CO., INC., THE SOLID GUARANTY, INC., B.F. HOMES, INC., PILAR DEVELOPMENT

  • G.R. No. 120587 - January 20, 2004 - MILAGROS M. BARCO, as the Natural Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem of MARY JOY ANN GUSTILO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SIXTEENTH DIVISION), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (BR. 133-MAKATI), NCJR; THE LOCAL CIVIL REGIS

  • G.R. Nos. 121213 and 121216-13 - January 13, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BUTCHOY DE LA TORRE and FE DE LA TORRE, Appellants.

  • G.R. Nos. 122114-17 - January 20, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. EDUARDO LIMOS y DE VERA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 122249 - January 29, 2004 - REYNALDO, TELESFORO, REMEDIOS, ALFREDO and BELEN, all surnamed AGUIRRE, VICENTA, HORACIO and FLORENCIO, all surnamed MAGTIBAY and LEONILA, CECILIA, ANTONIO, and VENANCIO, all surnamed MEDRANO, and ZOSIMA QUIAMBAO, Peti

  • G.R. No. 122767 - January 20, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JOSEPH CAJURAO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 125758 : January 20, 2004 - HEIRS OF SUSANA DE GUZMAN TUAZON, represented by CIRILO TUAZON, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MA. LUISA VICTORIO, ALBERTO GUANIO, JAIME B. VICTORIO, INES MOLINA, ERLINDA V. GREGORIO, VISITACION V. GERVACIO,

  • G.R. No. 126006 - January 29, 2004 - LAPULAPU FOUNDATION, INC. and ELIAS Q. TAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS (Seventeenth Division) and ALLIED BANKING CORP., Respondents

  • G.R. No. 125966 - January 13, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JUAN FACTAO alias "BOYET," ALBERT FRANCIS LABRODA alias " ABET," and TIRSO SERVIDAD, Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 126153 - January 14, 2004 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and ATTY. MORDENO CUA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 127469 - January 15, 2004 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and LEONILO MARCOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 127492 - January 16, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. DIONISIO SANTOS, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 128254 - January 16, 2004 - HEIRS OF POMPOSA SALUDARES represented by ISABEL DATOR, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE DATOR and CARMEN CALIMUTAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 127882 - January 27, 2004 - LA BUGAL-B'LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC., represented by its Chairman F'LONG MIGUEL M. LUMAYONG, WIGBERTO E. TAŅADA, PONCIANO BENNAGEN, JAIME TADEO, RENATO R. CONSTANTINO, JR., F'LONG AGUSTIN M. DABIE, ROBERTO P. AMLOY

  • G.R. No. 128609 : January 29, 2004 - DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, SPS. TOMAS CO & SATURNINA BARIA and REGISTER OF DEEDS, METRO MANILA, DISTRICT II, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 129008 - January 13, 2004 - TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, VERONICA O. EVANGELISTA assisted by her husband ZALDY EVANGELISTA, ALBERTO ORFINADA, and ROWENA O. UNGOS, assisted by her husband BEDA UNGOS, Petitioners, v.COURT OF APPEALS, ESPERANZA P. ORFINADA,

  • G.R. No. 130586 - January 29, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v.FRANCISCO BLANCAFLOR, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 130886 - January 29, 2004 - COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 132310 & 143968-69 - January 20, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FELIPE DEMATE y LOGANA alias Dodong Morales and DANTE MORALES (At Large), Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 133194-95 and 141539 : January 29, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ROMEO VALDEZ, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 133542 : January 29, 2004 - FRANCISCO DEE, represented in this Instrument by FORTUNATO T. DEE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REYNALDO G. ROS, In his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 80, Regional Trial Court, Morong, Rizal, and RODOLFO

  • G.R. No. 133710 - January 13, 2004 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and AMALIO L. SARMIENTO, doing business under the firm name "A.L. SARMIENTO CONSTRUCTION," Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 135249 : January 16, 2004 - ATTY. ORLANDO SALVADOR for and in behalf of the PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, Petitioner, v. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, as Ombudsman, RAFAEL A. SISON, CESAR ZALAMEA, ALICIA Ll. REYES, ARISTON S

  • G.R. No. 134766 - January 16, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ELPEDIO TORRES y CAETE, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 135619 - January 15, 2004 - ADONIS ARADILLOS and ALBINO GALABO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, Respondents.

  • People vs. Genosa : 135981 : January 15, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • G.R. No. 136114. January 22, 2004 - LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN AGENCY INCORPORATED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 135981 - January 15, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARIVIC GENOSA, Appellant.

  • G. R. Nos. 137542-43. January 20, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REYNAN SANTIAGO y CASTILLO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 139068 - January 16, 2004 - MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA BALANCED FOOD, NILO LETADA, FERNANDO FALLERA, DANILO ESCARIO, BENEDICTO CARREON, CAMILO AGUILA, GERRY BAUTISTA, FRIDAY MENDOZA, MARINO TAYOTO, PEPE TUBELLO, ROLANDO SERRANO, MATIAS BAQ

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 103055-56 - January 26, 2004 - ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.

      G.R. Nos. 103055-56 - January 26, 2004 - ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS


    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 103055-56 : January 26, 2004]

    ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.

    R E S O L U T I O N

    CALLEJO, J.:

    The petitioner Royal Cargo Corporation filed the instant petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision,1 and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 22673-74.The appellate court affirmed the resolutions of the Civil Aeronautics Board (respondent Board) directing the petitioner to transfer the top position of its corporation to a Filipino national.

    The petition stemmed from the following factual milieu:

    The petitioner Royal Cargo Corporation is a stock corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippine laws, seventy percent (70%) of which is owned by Filipino citizens and thirty percent (30%) by foreigners.The President of the petitioner company is a foreigner who is married to a Filipina, while the company officers, including the Chairman of the Board, the Executive Vice-President and all the Vice- Presidents are all Filipinos.

    On February 25, 1977, the petitioner, then operating under the name Royal Air Cargo, Inc., was initially granted by the respondent Board an indefinite authority to engage in international air freight forwarding.On October 11, 1983, the petitioner changed its corporate name to Royal Cargo Corporation.Subsequently, it filed a petition with the respondent Board requesting for a fixed duration of its authority.By way of Civil Aeronautics Board Resolution No. 140(85) dated April 12, 1985, the petitioners permit was extended for a period of five years, or until April 11, 1990.

    On the day that its permit to operate was to expire, or on April 11, 1990, the petitioner applied for a renewal thereof for another five years.In its petition, it alleged, inter alia, that its president, Michael K. Raeuber, was a German national.Acting thereon, the Air Carrier Accounts System and Field Audit Division of the respondent Board recommended the granting of the petition, provided that the position of president was transferred within thirty days from notice thereof, otherwise the permit would be cancelled, thus:

    ... [T]hat the Letter of Authority be renewed for another five (5) years, subject to the same terms and conditions stipulated in the original permit, and provided that no alien should interfere in the management as executive officer or occupy top position in the corporation.However, in view of the position occupied by an alien as President, violative of constitutional requirement, we recommend a penalty of P5,000.00 and another P5,000.00 for operating without permit and filing the petition on the day the permit expired.Likewise, the petitioner should be required to transfer the above-mentioned position to a Filipino national, otherwise, said permit shall be revoked if not complied within a period of thirty (30) days.The immediate revocation of permit is not recommended in order not to dislocate the one hundred eleven (111) employees now connected with the petitioner.2

    Based on the foregoing recommendation and after due hearing conducted thereon, the respondent Board promulgated Resolution No. 209(90), dated June 1, 1990, which reads:

    After considering the report of the Staff, the Board RESOLVED, as it hereby resolves to IMPOSE upon Royal Cargo Corporation a fine of P10,000.00, as a penalty for operating with expired permit, payable within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this Resolution.

    The Board Resolved further to direct Royal Cargo Corporation to transfer its top position to a Filipino national within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of this Resolution, otherwise its authority will be revoked.3

    The petitioner accordingly sought reconsideration of the above resolution, specifically the second paragraph thereof.The respondent Board, in Resolution No. 298(90) dated August 3, 1990, denied the motion, stating the following reasons:

    1.That it is the policy of the Board to grant a permit to engage in international airfreight forwarding only to citizens of the Philippines as defined in RA 776, as amended;

    2.That there is no law which precludes the Board from adopting such a policy; and

    3.That the Board find[s] no valid reason to abandon such policy because foreign capital is not very necessary in the business of airfreight forwarding.4

    Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.In the assailed Decision of September 30, 1991, the appellate court ruled that as a public utility, the petitioner is covered by the restriction embodied in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution which provides in part that:

    Section 11.. .. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.5

    The CA, thus, held that the respondent Board did not err in ordering the petitioner to transfer its top position to a Filipino national.The CA also declared that the promulgation of Resolution Nos. 209(90) and 298(90) was well within the prerogatives conferred upon the respondent Board by Sections 10(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 776:

    Sec. 10.Powers and duties of the Board (A) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Board shall have the powers to regulate the economic aspect of air transportation, and shall have the general supervision and regulation of, the jurisdiction and control over air carriers, general sales agents, cargo sales agents, and airfreight forwarders as well as their property, property rights, equipment, facilities, and franchise, insofar as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.

    (B) The Board may perform such acts, conduct such investigation, issue and amend orders, and make and amend such general or special rules, regulations, and procedures as it shall deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

    Consequently, the CA dismissed the petitioners appeal for lack of merit.6 The petitioner sought reconsideration of the aforesaid decision but the CA, in the assailed Resolution of November 27, 1991, denied the petitioners motion.7

    Hence, the present recourse.The petitioner alleges that the CA committed a reversible error in rendering the assailed decision and resolution.

    In the meantime, pending the resolution of the instant petition, the petitioners authority to operate as an international airfreight forwarder as applied for under the permit in question expired in 1995.Hence, in a Resolution dated September 22, 2003, the Court directed the parties to manifest to the court within ten (10) days from notice why the case should not be dismissed for being moot and academic.8 The Office of the Solicitor General stated that it interposed no objection to the dismissal of the petition on the ground as aforestated.9 The petitioner, on the other hand, affirmed to this Court that the respondent Board had already renewed the petitioners authority to operate as an International Airfreight Forwarder for a period of five (5) years up to April 12, 2005.10

    Clearly, the instant petition has become moot and academic.This is evident from the fact that the permit to operate as an international airfreight forwarder the respondent Board sought to withhold from the petitioner for failing to meet the constitutional Filipinization requirement had already lapsed in 1995.Also, with the current renewal of the petitioners authority to operate, it is to be assumed that it has finally decided to comply with the citizenship requirement mandated by the constitution for its line of business.Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the case is clearly warranted as the petitioner no longer has any legal interest in the present case.

    It is a rule of universal application that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases.And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.There is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.11 Thus, the Court will refrain from expressing its opinion in a case where no practical relief may be granted in view of a supervening event.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.

    SO ORDERED.

    Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.


    Endnotes:

    1 Penned by Associate Justice Manuel C. Herrera, Chairman, 12th Division, with Associate Justices Alfredo L. Benipayo and Cancio C. Garcia concurring.

    2 Rollo, p. 25.

    3 Id. at 35.

    4 Id. at 39.

    5 Id. at 28 (Emphasis supplied).

    6 Id. at 30.

    7 Id. at 32.

    8 Id. at 139.

    9 Id. at 140-143.

    10 Id. at 150-153.

    G.R. Nos. 103055-56 - January 26, 2004 - ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED