Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    First Lepanto v. CA G.R. No. 110571

    Uploaded by

    fg
    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Board of Investments. The Court rules that while a provision in the Omnibus Investments Code granted direct appeals to the Supreme Court, this did not take effect because it increased the Court's jurisdiction without its consent as required by the Constitution. As such, the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction over these cases in accordance with prior legislation. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    First Lepanto v. CA G.R. No. 110571

    Uploaded by

    fg
    100 views2 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Board of Investments. The Court rules that while a provision in the Omnibus Investments Code granted direct appeals to the Supreme Court, this did not take effect because it increased the Court's jurisdiction without its consent as required by the Constitution. As such, the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction over these cases in accordance with prior legislation. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

    Original Description:

    Legal Ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Board of Investments. The Court rules that while a provision in the Omnibus Investments Code granted direct appeals to the Supreme Court, this did not take effect because it increased the Court's jurisdiction without its consent as required by the Constitution. As such, the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction over these cases in accordance with prior legislation. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    100 views2 pages

    First Lepanto v. CA G.R. No. 110571

    Uploaded by

    fg
    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding the appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Board of Investments. The Court rules that while a provision in the Omnibus Investments Code granted direct appeals to the Supreme Court, this did not take effect because it increased the Court's jurisdiction without its consent as required by the Constitution. As such, the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction over these cases in accordance with prior legislation. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Today is Tuesday, December 27, 2016

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 110571 October 7, 1994

    FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC., petitioner,


    vs.
    THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC., respondents.

    Castillo, Laman. Tan & Pantaleon for petitioner.

    De Borja, Medi, Aldea, Ata, Bello, Guevarra & Serapio for private respondent.

    RESOLUTION

    MENDOZA, J.:

    This is a motion for the reconsideration of the decision of the Second Division 1 sustaining the jurisdiction of the Court
    of Appeals over appeals from the decisions of the Board of Investments and, consequently, dismissing the petition for
    certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. Because of the importance of the question raised, the
    Court en banc agreed to accept the matter for consideration.

    Petitioner's contention is that Circular No. 1-91 cannot be deemed to have superseded art. 82 of the Omnibus
    Investments Code of 1987 (E.O.
    No. 226) because the Code, which President Aquino promulgated in the exercise of legislative authority, is in the
    nature of a substantive act of Congress defining the jurisdiction of courts pursuant to Art. VIII, 2 of the Constitution,
    while the circular is a rule of procedure which this Court promulgated pursuant to its rule-making power under Art.
    VIII 5(5). Petitioner questions the holding of the Second Division that although the right to appeal granted by art.
    82 of the Code is a substantive right which cannot be modified by a rule of procedure, nonetheless, questions
    concerning where and in what manner the appeal can be brought are only matters of procedure which this Court
    has the power to regulate.

    Even assuming that there is merit in petitioner's contention, however, the result reached in the main decision is
    nonetheless, correct from another point of view.

    Judicial review of the decisions and final orders of the BOI was originally provided for in the Omnibus Investments
    Code of 1981 (P.D. No. 1789), 2
    Art. 78 of which stated:

    Art. 78. Judicial Relief . All orders or decisions of the Board in cases involving the provisions of this
    Code shall immediately be executory. No appeal from the order or decision of the Board by the party
    adversely affected shall stay such order or decision: Provided, That all appeals shall be filed directly
    with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or decision.

    Art. 78 was thereafter amended by B.P. Blg. 129, 3 by granting in 9 thereof exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the then
    Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals) over the decisions and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies. When
    the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 226) was promulgated on July 17, 1987, the right to appeal from the
    decisions and final orders of the BOI to the Supreme Court was again granted. Thus, the present Code provides:

    Art. 82. Judicial Relief . All orders or decisions of the Board in cases involving the provisions of this Code shall
    immediately be executory. No appeal from the order or decision of the Board by the party adversely affected shall
    stay such order or decision: Provided, That all appeals shall be filed directly with the Supreme Court within thirty
    (30) days from receipt of the order or decision.

    By then, however, the present Constitution had taken effect. 4 The Constitution now provides in Art. VI, 30 that "No law
    shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice
    and concurrence." This provision is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases placed under its
    appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily
    burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding the law in its most profound national aspects.

    Now, art. 82 of the 1987 Omnibus Investments Code, by providing for direct appeals to the Supreme Court from the
    decisions and final orders of the BOI, increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Since it was enacted without
    the advice and concurrence of this Court, this provision never became effective, with the result that it can never be
    deemed to have amended BP
    Blg. 129, 9. Consequently, the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide cases appealed to it from the BOI must
    be deemed to have been conferred by B.P. Blg. 129, 9, to be exercised by it in accordance with the procedure
    prescribed by Circular No. 1-91.

    Indeed, there is no reason why decisions and final orders of the BOI must be directly appealed to this Court. As
    already noted in the main decision in this case, the purpose of 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 is to provide uniform appeals to
    the Court of Appeals from the decisions and final orders of all quasi-judicial agencies, with the exception only of
    those issued under the Labor Code and those rendered by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. It is,
    therefore, regrettable that in the adoption of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 the advice and concurrence of
    the Supreme Court, as required by the Constitution, had not been obtained in providing for the appeal of the
    decisions and final orders of the BOI directly to the Supreme Court.

    WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and
    Kapunan, JJ., concur.

    Feliciano, J., is on leave.

    #Footnotes

    1 Per Nocon, J. (now retired) and concurred in by Narvasa, C. J., Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ.

    2 Effective Jan. 16, 1981.

    3 Effective Aug. 14, 1987.

    4 Effective Feb. 2, 1987.

    The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

    You might also like