Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Philippine Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Vs Coa

    Uploaded by

    Gean Cabrera
    The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) is a private corporation, not a public one. It was incorporated over 100 years ago by an act as a non-stock, non-profit organization composed of animal advocates. While it performs the public function of enforcing animal welfare laws, it is not controlled by the government and is managed by its own officers according to its bylaws. As a private corporation, it is not subject to audits by the Commission on Audit. The fact that an entity performs public functions does not make it a public corporation if it was not created by the state as its agency to help carry out governmental functions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philippine Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Vs Coa

    Uploaded by

    Gean Cabrera
    2K views2 pages
    The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) is a private corporation, not a public one. It was incorporated over 100 years ago by an act as a non-stock, non-profit organization composed of animal advocates. While it performs the public function of enforcing animal welfare laws, it is not controlled by the government and is managed by its own officers according to its bylaws. As a private corporation, it is not subject to audits by the Commission on Audit. The fact that an entity performs public functions does not make it a public corporation if it was not created by the state as its agency to help carry out governmental functions.

    Original Title

    Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs Coa

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) is a private corporation, not a public one. It was incorporated over 100 years ago by an act as a non-stock, non-profit organization composed of animal advocates. While it performs the public function of enforcing animal welfare laws, it is not controlled by the government and is managed by its own officers according to its bylaws. As a private corporation, it is not subject to audits by the Commission on Audit. The fact that an entity performs public functions does not make it a public corporation if it was not created by the state as its agency to help carry out governmental functions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Philippine Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Vs Coa

    Uploaded by

    Gean Cabrera
    The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) is a private corporation, not a public one. It was incorporated over 100 years ago by an act as a non-stock, non-profit organization composed of animal advocates. While it performs the public function of enforcing animal welfare laws, it is not controlled by the government and is managed by its own officers according to its bylaws. As a private corporation, it is not subject to audits by the Commission on Audit. The fact that an entity performs public functions does not make it a public corporation if it was not created by the state as its agency to help carry out governmental functions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS vs COMMISSION ON AUDIT (G.R. No.

    169752) Facts: The petitioner was incorporated as a juridical entity over one hundred years ago by virtue of Act No. 1285, enacted on January 19, 1905, by the Philippine Commission. The petitioner, at the time it was created, was composed of animal aficionados and animal propagandists. The objects of the petitioner, as stated in Section 2 of its charter, shall be to enforce laws relating to cruelty inflicted upon animals or the protection of animals in the Philippine Islands, and generally, to do and perform all things which may tend in any way to alleviate the suffering of animals and promote their welfare. The petitioner was initially imbued under its charter with the power to apprehend violators of animal welfare laws. In addition, the petitioner was to share one-half (1/2) of the fines imposed and collected through its efforts for violations of the laws related thereto. Subsequently, however, the power to make arrests as well as the privilege to retain a portion of the fines collected for violation of animal-related laws were recalled by virtue of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 148. An audit team from COA wanted to conduct an audit survey but petitioner refused saying that it is a private corporation and not a public one. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is a private corporation. Held: Yes. A reading of petitioners charter shows that it is not subject to control or supervision by any agency of the State, unlike government-owned and -controlled corporations. No government representative sits on the board of trustees of the petitioner. Like all private corporations, the successors of its members are determined voluntarily and solely by the petitioner in accordance with its by-laws, and may exercise those powers generally accorded to private corporations, such as the powers to hold property, to sue and be sued, to use a common seal, and so forth. It may adopt by-laws for its internal operations: the petitioner shall be managed or operated by its officers in accordance with its by-laws in force. The employees of the petitioner are registered and covered by the Social Security System at the latters initiative, and not through the Government Service Insurance System, which should be the case if the employees are considered government employees. This is another indication of petitioners nature as a private entity.

    The fact that a certain juridical entity is impressed with public interest does not, by that circumstance alone, make the entity a public corporation, inasmuch as a corporation may be private although its charter contains provisions of a public character, incorporated solely for the public good. This class of corporations may be considered quasi-public corporations, which are private corporations that render public service, supply public wants, or pursue other eleemosynary objectives. While purposely organized for the gain or benefit of its members, they are required by law to discharge functions for the public benefit. The true criterion, therefore, to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State. If the corporation is created by the State as the latters own agency or instrumentality to help it in carrying out its governmental functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise, it is private. Applying the above test, provinces, chartered cities, and barangays can best exemplify public corporations. They are created by the State as its own device and agency for the accomplishment of parts of its own public works.

    You might also like