ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 145368.August 5, 2002]
LAUREL vs. HON. DESIERTO
SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 5 2002.
G.R. No. 145368 ( Salvador H. Laurel vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto.)
Petioner Salvador H. Laurel moves for a "clarification" of the resolution of this Court dated July 1, 2002, wherein we held, among others, that "a conclusion that EXPOCORP is a government owned or controlled corporation would not alter the outcome of this case because petitioner's position and functions as chief executive officer of EXPOCORP are by virtue of his being chairman of NCC."
Petitioner asks whether his election as chairman of EXPOCORP "converted" said corporation into a government or controlled corporation (GOCC). In such a case, petitioner points out, the Court's Ruling would "run counter to Article 12, Section 16 of the Constitution" providing that the GOCCs are created by special charters. On the other hand, if EXPOCORP "remained" a private corporation, petitioner asks whether it would be subject to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1594 and its implementing rules and regulations as well as government accounting and auditing regulations in view of petitioner's election as chairman of said corporation.
The Court declines petitioner's invitation to "clarify" these questions for the simple reason that petitioner's status as a public officer has no relation to the nature of EXPOCORP.
Petitioner also makes the following queries. Does the decision of the Court in this case imply that "all private citizens who accepted membership in the NCC also [become] 'public officers'?" Does the ruling modify or reverse previous rulings in Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, [1] cralaw Camporedondo vs. National Labor Relations Commission, [2] cralaw Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Pabion? [3] cralaw The first is irrelevant in the disposition of this case; the second is reiterative of petitioner's arguments in his motion for reconsideration.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the motion for clarification. No further pleadings shall be allowed.(Davide, Jr., C.J., no part)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw G.R. No. 140199-200, February 6, 2002.
[2] cralaw 312 SCRA 47 (1999).
[3] cralaw 320 SCRA 188 (1999).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
