EN BANC

[G.R. No. 188760. June 30, 2020.]

THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, represented by its Chairman,

THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, represented by its
Commissioner, and THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, represented
by its Commissioner, petitioners, vs. HON. SILVINO T.
PAMPILO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 26, SOCIAL JUSTICE
SOCIETY and VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, respondents;

PANGKALAHATANG SANGGUNIAN MANILA AND SUBURBS

DRIVER'S ASSOCIATION NATIONWIDE (PASANG MASDA),
INCORPORATED, respondent-intervenor;

PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTEX

PHILIPPINES, INC., AND PETRON CORPORATION, necessary
parties.

[G.R. No. 189060. June 30, 2020.]

CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. SILVINO T.

PAMPILO, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 26, SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY and VLADIMIR
ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, respondents;

PANGKALAHATANG SANGGUNIAN MANILA AND SUBURBS

DRIVER'S ASSOCIATION NATIONWIDE (PASANG MASDA),
INCORPORATED, respondent-intervenor.

[G.R. No. 189333. June 30, 2020.]

PETRON CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. SILVINO T.

PAMPILO, JR., SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY, VLADIMIR
ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, and PANGKALAHATANG
SANGGUNIAN MANILA AND SUBURBS DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION NATIONWIDE, INC. (PASANG MASDA) ,
respondents.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Before this Court are Consolidated Petitions for Certiorari 1 filed under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Orders issued by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 26, in Civil Case No. 03-106101, on the
following dates: April 27, 2009, 2 May 5, 2009, 3 June 23, 2009 4 and July 7,
2009 5 (collectively referred to as the Assailed Orders). HTcADC

Factual Antecedents
The material and relevant facts are as follows:
On March 21, 2003, private respondent Social Justice Society (SJS), a
political party duly registered with the Commission on Elections, filed with
the RTC of Manila, a Petition for Declaratory Relief, 6 docketed as Civil Case
No. 03-106101, against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell), Caltex
Philippines, Inc. (Caltex), and Petron Corporation (Petron), collectively
referred to as the "Big 3." In its Petition, private respondent SJS raised as an
issue the oil companies' business practice of increasing the prices of their
petroleum products whenever the price of crude oil increases in the world
market despite that fact that they had purchased their inventories at a much
lower price long before the increase. SJS argued that such practice
constitutes monopoly and combination in restraint of trade, prohibited under
Article 186 7 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). SJS likewise contended that
the acts of these oil companies of increasing the prices of its oil products
whenever their competitors increase their prices fall under the term
"combination or concerted action" used in Section 11 (a) 8 of Republic Act
(RA) No. 8479, otherwise known as the Downstream Oil Industry
Deregulation Act of 1998 (Approved on February 10, 1998). The Petition was
later amended to include private respondent Atty. Vladimir Alarique T.
Cabigao (Cabigao), a member of private respondent SJS, as an additional
petitioner to the case. 9
The Big 3 separately moved for the dismissal of the case on the
grounds of lack of legal standing, lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction,
and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 10
On December 17, 2003, public respondent RTC issued an Order 11
denying the motions to dismiss and directing the parties to refer the matter
to the Joint Task Force of the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department
of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to Section 11 of RA 8479. In the meantime, public
respondent RTC ordered the suspension of the proceedings.
Chevron sought reconsideration but public respondent RTC denied the
same in its June 30, 2004 Order. 12
Thereafter, the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force submitted its Report 13
finding no clear evidence that the Big 3 violated Article 186 of the RPC or
Section 11 (a) of RA 8479. Based on the said report, the Big 3 orally moved
for the dismissal of the case. 14 Private respondents, on the other hand,
moved to open and examine the books of account of the Big 3 to enable the
court to determine whether Section 11 (a) of RA 8479 had been violated. 15
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On April 27, 2009, public respondent RTC issued the first assailed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Order, which resolved to:
(1) deny the motions to dismiss of the Big 3;
(2) grant private respondents' motion to open and examine the
books of accounts of the Big 3; and
(3) order the Commission on Audit (COA), Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR), and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to open and
examine the books of accounts of the Big 3.
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion[s] to Dismiss [are]
hereby DENIED and Motion for the Opening and Examination of the
Books of Account of the [Big 3] is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the
[COA], [BIR], and [BOC] are hereby ordered to open and examine the
cash receipts, cash disbursement books, the purchase orders on the
petroleum products, delivery receipts, sales invoices and other
related documents on the purchases of the petroleum products
covering the period January 2003 to December 2003. The three
government agencies are hereby ordered to take necessary actions
to comply with the Order of this Court.
Furnish copy of this Order to the [COA], [BIR], and [BOC].
SO ORDERED. 16

The Big 3 separately sought reconsideration. 17 Private respondents,

on the other hand, moved 18 for the production of records and the inclusion
of private respondent Cabigao as part of the team that would open and
examine the books of accounts of the Big 3.
On May 5, 2009, public respondent RTC issued the second assailed
Order, directing the Chairman of COA and the Commissioners of the BIR and
the BOC to form a panel of examiners to conduct an examination of the
books of accounts of the Big 3 and to submit a report thereon within three
(3) months from receipt of the Order. 19
Though not parties to the case, the COA, the BIR, and the BOC, through
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), were constrained to file a Motion for
Reconsideration 20 of the April 27 and May 5, 2009 Orders on the ground
that the order of examination is unwarranted and beyond their respective
jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, private respondent-intervenor Pangkalahatang Sanggunian
Manila and Suburbs Drivers' Association Nationwide (Pasang Masda), Inc.
filed a Motion for Intervention with attached Petition-in-Intervention, 21 which
the Big 3 opposed.
On June 23, 2009, public respondent RTC issued the third assailed
Order, granting Pasang Masda's Motion for Intervention and thereby
admitting its Petition-in-Intervention. 22 aScITE

On July 7, 2009, the RTC issued the fourth assailed Order denying the
motions for reconsideration of the Big 3 and the OSG and granting private
respondents' motion to include private respondent Cabigao as part of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 panel of examiners. 23 Public respondent RTC stood pat on its April 27, 2009
Order citing the doctrine of parens patriae. 24
A few days later, on July 24, 2009, the RTC, acting on the manifestation
of private respondents that the government agencies have not acted to
comply with its order, directed the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to explain
within 72 hours from notice why they should not be cited in contempt for
failure to comply. 25
After the lapse of the 72-hour period, private respondents moved for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the Chairman of COA and the
Commissioners of the BIR and BOC for their refusal to obey the orders of the
RTC. 26 Accordingly, the RTC issued an Order 27 giving the Chairman of COA
and the Commissioners of the BIR and BOC five (5) days from receipt of the
notice within which to file a comment or opposition to the motion for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against them.
Left with no other recourse, the COA, represented by its Chairman, the
BIR and the BOC, represented by their respective Commissioners, through
the OSG, filed before this Court, on July 31, 2009, a Petition for Certiorari
with Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, 28 docketed as G.R. No. 188760, assailing the April 27
and May 5, 2009 Orders of the public respondent RTC. Direct resort to this
Court was made because the issues raised were purely legal, which is an
exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Finding the application for TRO meritorious, this Court on August 4,
2009 issued a TRO, 29 enjoining the implementation of the April 27 and May
5, 2009 Orders of public respondent RTC.
Chevron and Petron followed suit and filed with this Court their
respective petitions for certiorari. Chevron filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with Application for TRO and/Writ of Preliminary Injunction with
Motion for Consolidation, 30 docketed as G.R. No. 189060, assailing the April
27 and July 7, 2009 Orders while Petron filed a Petition for Certiorari (with
prayer for issuance of TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction), 31 docketed
as G.R. No. 189333, assailing the April 27, June 23, and July 7, 2009 Orders
of public respondent RTC. Both Petitions were consolidated with G.R. No.
188760. 32
Shell, on the other hand, filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition
f o r Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of
preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 110050, 33 assailing the
April 27, June 23, and July 7, 2009 Orders of public respondent RTC.
On August 6, 2010, the CA rendered a Decision 34 on the Petition for
Certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 110050. Finding grave abuse of
discretion on the part of public respondent RTC, the CA reversed and set
aside the April 27, June 23, and July 7, 2009 Orders, and ordered the
dismissal of the case for declaratory relief for lack of cause of action. The
appellate court, in essence, opined that the issues raised by private
respondents cannot be made subject of an action for declaratory relief. As to
the propriety of the intervention of Pasang Masda, it ruled that Pasang Masda
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 had no legal interest in the matter.
Aggrieved, private respondents sought to have the August 6, 2010
Decision reconsidered. However, having been informed of the existence of
G.R. No. 188760 assailing the same Orders of public respondent RTC, the CA
resolved in its November 12, 2010 Resolution 35 to defer any action on the
case.
On June 4, 2013, this Court issued a Resolution 36 directing the CA to
resolve the pending motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 110050
with dispatch and to inform the Court of whatever action in may take
thereon.
In compliance with this Court's directive, on August 6, 2013, the CA
issued a Resolution 37 denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
private respondents.
Issues
Hence, the instant consolidated Petitions, raising the following issues:
In G.R. No. 188760, the OSG contends that public respondent RTC
gravely abused [its] discretion in that:
I
[It] ordered [the COA, the BIR, and the BOC] to do a patently ultra
vires act, directing COA to audit beyond its constitutional mandate
and directing BIR and BOC to examine outside their statutory powers.
II.
[It] invoiced parens patriae and Rule 27 on Production or Inspection of
Documents in [its] compulsory designation of COA, BIR and BOC as
anti-trust auditors while usurping the authority of the [DOE-DOJ Joint]
Task Force created by the Oil Deregulation Law for anti-trust
monitoring.
III.
[It] disregarded Due Process, to enforce [its] void orders, by
threatening COA, BIR, and BOC with contempt despite lack of notice
and being non-parties to the case. 38
In G.R. No. 189060, Chevron interposes the following issues:
I. WHETHER [PRIVATE RESPONDENTS'] PETITION IN CIVIL CASE
NO. 03-106101:
(i) RAISES A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY OR ACTUAL CASE THAT
IS RIPE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION; AND
(ii) REQUIRES EXERCISE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THE "JUDICIAL POWER" OF COURTS AS PROVIDED UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION;
II. WHETHER THE [PUBLIC RESPONDENT RTC] OF MANILA HAS
JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ON
WHETHER PLAYERS IN THE DOWNSTREAM OIL INDUSTRY HAVE
COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST SAFEGUARDS UNDER
R.A. 8479. 39 HEITAD

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 In G.R. No. 189333, Petron alleges that:
A.
[PUBLIC RESPONDENT RTC] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
DENYING PETRON'S MOTION TO DISMISS DESPITE THE FACT THAT
[PRIVATE RESPONDENT] SJS' AMENDED PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF MERELY SEEKS AN ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT ON
WHETHER X X X PETRON AND THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES, PILIPINAS
SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC.
HAVE VIOLATED THE LAWS AGAINST MONOPOLY, COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR CARTELIZATION.
B.
[PUBLIC RESPONDENT RTC] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
WHEN [IT] DENIED PETRON'S MOTION TO DISMISS [PRIVATE
RESPONDENT] SJS' AMENDED PETITION AFTER THE [DOE-DOJ] JOINT
TASK FORCE TO WHICH [PUBLIC RESPONDENT RTC] REFERRED THE
CASE "FOR THE SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THE PENDING
CONTROVERSY," SUBMITTED ITS REPORT DATED APRIL 17, 2008
THAT THERE IS NO MONOPOLY OR COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR CARTELIZATION COMMITTED BY PETRON, SHELL AND
CHEVRON.
C.
[PUBLIC RESPONDENT RTC] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
WHEN [IT] ORDERED THE INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION OF THE
BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF PETRON, SHELL AND CHEVRON
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SAME IS EXCLUSIVELY COGNIZABLE
BY THE [DOE-DOJ] JOINT TASK FORCE CREATED UNDER R.A. 8479.
D.
[PUBLIC RESPONDENT RTC] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
WHEN [IT] ADMITTED PASANG MASDA'S PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
DESPITE THE LATTER'S LACK OF MATERIAL, DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE
LEGAL INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE LOWER
COURT. 40
Simply put, the issues to be resolved are as follows:
(1) Whether public respondent RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in not dismissing the Amended Petition for Declaratory
Relief;
(2) Whether public respondent RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in ordering the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to examine
the books of accounts of the Big 3 and in including private
respondent Cabigao as part of the "panel of examiners;" and
(3) Whether public respondent RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in allowing Pasang Masda to intervene in the case.
The Parties' Arguments
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 G.R. No. 188760
The OSG assails the April 27 and May 5, 2009 Orders of the RTC on the
ground that it would be legally impossible for the COA, the BIR, and the BOC
to comply with the said Orders because it is beyond the mandates of these
government agencies to examine the books of accounts of the Big 3. 41 Also,
the OSG asserts that the orders are not sanctioned by the Rules of Court,
specifically Rule 27 on the Production or Inspection of Documents or Things,
and RA 8479. 42 In fact, under RA 8479, it is the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force
which has the power and authority to monitor or investigate oil companies,
and initiate the filing of a complaint, if necessary. 43 In this case, considering
that public respondent RTC already referred the case to the DOE-DOJ Joint
Task Force for investigation, there was no need for public respondent RTC to
issue said orders as it is bound by the task force's finding that no violation
was committed by the Big 3 under the doctrine of conclusive finality. 44
Shell
Shell, impleaded as a necessary party, likewise argues that public
respondent RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the opening
of the books of accounts of the Big 3 as this is beyond the scope of a petition
for declaratory relief, which is only limited to the declaration of legal rights.
45 Shell claims that it is beyond the mandates and statutory powers of the

COA, the BIR, and the BOC to examine the books of accounts of the Big 3, 46
and that such order is a violation of the Big 3's right to due process. 47ATICcS

G.R. No. 189060

Chevron ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in
issuing the April 27 and July 7, 2009 Orders. Chevron argues that the
Amended Petition for Declaratory Relief filed by private respondents failed to
raise a justiciable controversy and to establish a cause of action for a
declaratory relief. 48 Chevron points out that there is no factual allegation in
the Petition that private respondents' rights are being threatened or that
there is an imminent violation thereof that should be prevented by the
declaratory relief sought. 49 Instead, from the allegations, it appears that
private respondents want public respondent RTC to investigate and render
an opinion on whether the Big 3 violated Article 186 of the RPC or Section 11
of RA 8479. 50 This, however, is not the function of the court. 51 Rather, it is
the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force that has primary jurisdiction to investigate
whether there was a violation of Section 11 of RA 8479. 52 Thus, the RTC
exceeded its power or authority when it created its own procedure, ordering
the government agencies to investigate the Big 3 and allowing private
respondent Cabigao to become part of the panel of examiners. 53 To justify
its orders, the RTC cites the doctrine of parens patriae. Chevron, however,
avers that this doctrine is inapplicable as this only applies to measures taken
by the State to protect those who cannot protect themselves such as minors,
insane, and incompetent persons. 54
G.R. No. 189333
Petron imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public
respondent trial court in issuing the April 27, June 23 and July 7, 2009
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Orders. Echoing the arguments of Chevron, Petron posits that a petition for
declaratory relief is not available in the instant case because the requisites
for an action for declaratory relief are not present, specifically there is no
justiciable controversy, and that a reading of the petition readily shows that
private respondents are merely asking for an advisory opinion, which courts
are proscribed from rendering. 55 Neither do private respondents have a
cause of action in view of the factual findings of the DOE-DOJ Joint Task
Force that the Big 3 did not commit any violation of Section 11 of RA 8479
and Article 186 of the RPC. 56 Also, public respondent RTC exceeded its
authority when it ordered the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to inspect and
examine the books of accounts of the Big 3 because under RA 8479, it is the
DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force which has the primary jurisdiction to monitor,
investigate, and file the necessary cases in court against any person or
entity in the oil industry. 57 Moreover, public respondent RTC cannot use the
doctrine of parens patriae to justify its order because the doctrine only refers
to the inherent power of the State to provide protection to those who lack
the legal capacity to act on their own behalf. 58 With regard to the June 23,
2009 Order, Petron contends that public respondent RTC committed grave
abuse of discretion in allowing Pasang Masda to intervene despite the fact
that it lacked legal interest in the subject matter of litigation. 59 Furthermore,
Petron claims that the Pasang Masda's Petition-in-Intervention was filed
beyond the time allowed by the rules as the parties have already pleaded
their respective positions and the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force had already
submitted its Report. 60
Private respondents' arguments
Private respondents, on the other hand, assert that they availed of the
proper recourse and that all the requisites for a declaratory relief are
present. 61 They maintain that the RTC has jurisdiction over their Petition and
that the rule on primary jurisdiction invoked by the Big 3 is not a hard-and-
fast rule. 62 They insist that the jurisdiction of the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force
is not exclusive and that its findings are not conclusive. 63 As regards the
order of public respondent RTC to open and examine the books of accounts
of the Big 3, private respondents opine that this is in accordance with the
principles of social justice and Article 24 of the Civil Code, which grants
power to the court to issue such order to protect the consuming public. 64
Pasang Masda's arguments
Similarly, Pasang Masda banks on the social justice provisions of the
Constitution as legal basis for the orders of public respondent RTC. 65 It
avers that the auditing powers of the COA is not limited to government
entities because as a member of the United Nations Board of Auditors
(UNBOA), it was previously deployed as part of the auditing team of 17 UN
agencies. 66 In addition, Pasang Masda cites the case of Manila Electric
Company (MERALCO) v. Lualhati , 67 where the COA was tasked by the
Energy Regulatory Commission to audit MERALCO, as precedent for the
orders of public respondent RTC. 68 It also posits that the creation of the
DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force cannot divest the court of its judicial power over
the instant case and that its findings are merely recommendatory. 69
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Regarding its intervention, Pasang Masda claims that there had been cases
where the court allowed a party to intervene despite the fact that the parties
have already submitted a compromise agreement as long as the intervenor
had an interest in the case. 70 In this case, it insists that it has an interest in
the outcome of the case as consumers of oil products. 71
Ruling
The Petitions are meritorious.
An action for declaratory relief is
not the proper remedy.
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. 72 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. 73
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." 74
In the instant case, private respondents, in their Amended Petition,
alleged that "[the Big 3] now and then increase the price of their petroleum
products" and that "an increase in prices declared by one of them is
inevitably followed by increases by the others." 75 Private respondents, thus,
interposed the following issues:
(A) WHETHER X X X THE ACT OF OIL COMPANIES, INCLUDING [THE
BIG 3], IN INCREASING THE PRICE OF THEIR OIL PRODUCTS
WHENEVER THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL IN THE WORLD MARKET
INCREASES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD PURCHASED THEIR
INVENTORY OF CRUDE OIL LONG BEFORE SUCH INCREASE IN WORLD
MARKET PRICE AND AT A MUCH LOWER PRICE, IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
FOREGOING LEGAL PROVISIONS.
(B) WHETHER X X X THE ACT OF AN OIL COMPANY IN INCREASING
THE PRICES OF ITS OIL PRODUCTS WHENEVER ITS PROPOSED
COMPETITORS INCREASE THEIR PRICES FALLS UNDER THE TERM
'COMBINATION OR CONCERTED ACTIONS' USED IN SECTION 11 (A) OF
[RA] 8479. 76
Based on the foregoing, the core issue involved in the Amended
Petition is whether the business practice of the Big 3 violates the RPC and RA
8479. This, however, cannot be made the subject matter of a declaratory
relief. TIADCc

Private respondents filed their Amended Petition based on acts already

committed or being committed by the Big 3, which they believe are in
violation of the RPC and RA 8479. It appears therefore that the filing of the
Amended Petition was done on the assumption that there was already a
breach or violation on the part of the Big 3, which cannot be the subject of a
declaratory relief. It must be stressed that an action for declaratory relief
presupposes that there has been no actual breach as such action is filed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 only for the purpose of securing an authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a contract, deed or statute. 77 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. 78 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." 79
Worth mentioning at this point is the ruling in Sarmiento v. Hon.
Capapas, 80 where the Court explained that:
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.
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. 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.
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. Whereas the case at bar
was purported to bring about a simple declaration of the rights of the
parties to the action, the judgment goes further than said declaration
and decrees that the importation by the respondent corporation
violates the law, and further directs that the legal importation be
confiscated under the provisions of the law (Section 1 (e), R.A. No.
1194). 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. 81
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. 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.
The DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force is
duly authorized by law to
investigate and to order the
prosecution of cartelization.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Moreover, the determination of such issue lies with the DOE-DOJ Joint
Task Force. Section 13 of RA 8479 pertinently provides:
SEC. 13. Remedies. —
a) Government Action — Whenever it is determined by the Joint
Task Force created under Section 14 (d) of this Act, that there is a
threatened, imminent or actual violation of Section 11 of this Act, it
shall direct the provincial or city prosecutors having jurisdiction to
institute an action to prevent or restrain such violation with the
Regional Trial Court of the place where the defendant or any of the
defendants reside or has his place of business. Pending hearing of the
complaint and before final judgment, the court may at any time issue
a [TRO] or an order of injunction as shall be deemed just within the
premises, under the same conditions and principles as injunctive
relief is granted under the Rules of Court.
Whenever it is determined by the Joint Task Force that the
Government or any of its instrumentalities or agencies, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, shall suffer loss or
damage in its business or property by reason of violation of Section
11 of this Act, such instrumentality, agency or corporation may file an
action to recover damages and the costs of suit with the Regional
Trial Court which has jurisdiction as provided above. AIDSTE

b) Private Complaint. — Any person or entity shall report any

violation of Section 11 of this Act to the Joint Task Force. The Joint
Task Force shall investigate such reports in aid of which the DOE
Secretary may exercise the powers granted under Section 15 of this
Act. The Joint Task Force shall prepare a report embodying its findings
and recommendations as a result of any such investigation, and the
report shall be made public at the discretion of the Joint Task Force. In
the event that the Joint Task Force determines that there has been a
violation of Section 11 of this Act, the private person or entity shall be
entitled to sue for and obtain injunctive relief, as well as damages, in
the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over any of the parties,
under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief is
granted under the Rules of Court.
Corollarily, DOE Department Circular No. 98-03-004 or the Rules and
Regulations Implementing [RA] 8479, "Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation
Act of 1998" provides in Section 17 thereof, viz.:
SECTION 17. Remedies. —
The DOE-DOJ Task Force, created under Section 14 (d) of the Act,
shall take the following remedial measures:
a. investigate and act upon complaints or reports from any person
of an unreasonable rise in the prices of petroleum products and may,
motu proprio, investigate and/or file the necessary complaint with the
proper court or agency;
b. investigate and act upon complaints or reports of commission
of the prohibited acts under Section 11 of the Act, and after
determination of such violation endorse the same to the provincial or
city prosecutor having jurisdiction for institution of the appropriate
action;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 c. prepare and submit a report to the Secretary of Energy and
Secretary of Justice embodying its findings and recommendations as
a result of its investigation of the alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Act;
d. investigate and act upon a complaint by any instrumentality or
agency of the Government, including government-owned or -
controlled corporations, that loss or damage has been suffered or
incurred by such instrumentality, agency or government corporation
by reason of violation of Section 11 of the Act; and
e. perform such other functions as may jointly be assigned by the
Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Justice.
In Cong. Garcia v. Hon. Corona, 82 the Court made it clear that it is the
DOE-DOJ Task Force which has the power to investigate and cause the
prosecution of violators. It ruled that:
Article 186 of the [RPC], as amended, punishes as a felony the
creation of monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. The
Solicitor General, on the other hand, cites provisions of RA 8479
intended to prevent competition from being corrupted or
manipulated. Section 11, "Anti-Trust Safeguards," defines and
prohibits cartelization and predatory pricing. It penalizes the persons
and officers involved with imprisonment of three (3) to seven (7)
years and fines ranging from One million to Two million pesos. For
this purpose, a Joint Task Force from the [DOE] and [DOJ] is created
under Section 14 to investigate and order the prosecution of
violations.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 13 of the Act provides for "Remedies," under which the
filing of actions by government prosecutors and the investigation of
private complainants by the Task Force is provided. Sections 14 and
15 provide how the [DOE] shall monitor and prevent the occurrence
of collusive pricing in the industry.
It can be seen, therefore, that instead of the price controls
advocated by the petitioner, Congress has enacted anti-trust
measures which it believes will promote free and fair competition.
Upon the other hand, the disciplined, determined, consistent and
faithful execution of the law is the function of the President. As stated
by public respondents, the remedy against unreasonable price
increases is not the nullification of Section 19 of R.A. 8479 but the
setting into motion of its various other provisions. 83
Again, in Congressman Garcia v. The Executive Secretary, et al., 84 the
Court declared that:
x x x The remedy against the perceived failure of the Oil
Deregulation Law to combat cartelization is not to declare it invalid,
but to set in motion its anti-trust safeguards under Sections 11, 12,
and 13.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x R.A. No. 8479, x x x does not condone these acts; indeed,
Section 11 (a) of the law expressly prohibits and punishes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 cartelization, which is defined in the same section as "any
agreement, combination or concerted action by refiners, importers
and/or dealers, or their representatives, to fix prices, restrict outputs
or divide markets, either by products or by areas, or allocate markets,
either by products or by areas, in restraint of trade or free
competition, including any contractual stipulation which prescribes
pricing levels and profit margins." This definition is broad enough to
include the alleged acts of overpricing or price-fixing by the Big 3.
R.A. No. 8479 has provided, aside from prosecution for cartelization,
several other anti-trust mechanisms, including the enlarged scope of
the [DOE's] monitoring power and the creation of a Joint Task Force to
immediately act on complaints against unreasonable rise in the price
of petroleum products. Petitioner Garcia's failure is that he failed to
show that he resorted to these measures before filing the instant
petition. His belief that these oversight mechanisms are unrealistic
and insufficient does not permit disregard of these remedies. 85
Here, the RTC initially resolved to refer the instant case to the DOE-DOJ
Joint Task Force for investigation and determination of whether the Big 3
were in violation of Section 11 of RA 8479. However, upon receipt of the
report of the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force that there was no violation committed
by the Big 3, the RTC, instead of dismissing the case, ordered the COA, the
BIR, and the BOC to open and examine the books of accounts of the Big 3
and even allowed private respondent Cabigao to be part of the panel of
examiners. In doing so, the trial court divested the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force
of its power and authority and vested the same to the COA, the BIR, the BOC
and private respondent Cabigao. AaCTcI

To justify its orders, the public respondent trial court invokes the
doctrine of parens patriae.
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. 86 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."
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.
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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
I n Fernando v. [COA], 88 the Court explained the audit jurisdiction of
the COA:
Section 2, Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution provides for the
COA's audit jurisdiction:
SECTION 2. (1) The [COA] shall have the power,
authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all
accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or
held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any
of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a)
constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have
been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b)
autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other
government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries; and (d) such 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 such audit as a
condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the
internal control system of the audited agencies is
inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures,
including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary
and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep
the general accounts of the Government and, for such
period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers
and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.
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:
1. Non-governmental entities "subsidized by the
government;"
2. Non-governmental entities "required to pay levy or
government share;"
3. Non-governmental entities that have "received
counterpart funds from the government;" and
4. Non-governmental entities "partly funded by donations
through the government."
COA's audit jurisdiction is also laid down in Section 11, Chapter
4, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987:
SECTION 11. General Jurisdiction. — (1) The
Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and
duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining
to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses
of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or
pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with original charters,
and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies,
commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal
autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state
colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d)
such 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 such audit as a condition of
subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control
system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the
Commission may adopt such measures, including
temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and
appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the
general accounts of the Government and, for such period
as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and
other supporting papers pertaining thereto. EcTCAD

xxx xxx xxx

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the COA's audit
jurisdiction generally covers public entities. However, its authority to
audit extends even to non-governmental entities insofar as the latter
receives financial aid from the government. Thus, it is clear that the
determination of COA's jurisdiction over a specific entity does not
merely require an examination of the nature of the entity. Should the
entity be found to be non-governmental, further determination must
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 be had as to the source of its funds or the nature of the account
sought to be audited by the COA.
In the analysis of an entity's nature, this Court, in prior cases,
examined the statutory origin, the charter, purpose and the relations
that a particular entity has with the State.
I n Phil. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v.
[COA], this Court clarified that totality of an entity's relations with the
State must be considered. If the corporation is created by the State as
the latter's own agency or instrumentality to help it in carrying out its
governmental functions, then that corporation is considered public;
otherwise, it is private. This Court examined the charter of therein
petitioner, Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
its employees' membership to social insurance system, and the
presence of x x x government officials in its board, among others. In
that case, this Court ruled that the mere public purpose of an entity's
existence does not, per se, make it a public corporation:
Fourth. The respondents contend that the petitioner
is a "body politic" because its primary purpose is to
secure the protection and welfare of animals which, in
turn, redounds to the public good.
This argument, is, at best, specious. 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.
Examples of these corporations are utility, railroad,
warehouse, telegraph, telephone, water supply
corporations and transportation companies. It must be
stressed that a quasi-public corporation is a species of
private corporations, but the qualifying factor is the type
of service the former renders to the public: if it performs
a public service, then it becomes a quasi-public
corporation.
Authorities are of the view that the purpose alone of
the corporation cannot be taken as a safe guide, for the
fact is that almost all corporations are nowadays created
to promote the interest, good, or convenience of the
public. A bank, for example, is a private corporation; yet,
it is created for a public benefit. Private schools and
universities are likewise private corporations; and yet,
they are rendering public service. Private hospitals and
wards are charged with heavy social responsibilities.
More so with all common carriers. On the other hand,
there may exist a public corporation even if it is endowed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 with gifts or donations from private individuals.
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." 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.
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.
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. HSAcaE

As to Pasang Masda's reliance on the case of Meralco v. Lualhati, 89 this

is misplaced. 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.
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. 90 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. 91 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.
As previously discussed, it is the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force that has the
sole power and authority to monitor, investigate, and endorse the filing of
complaints, if necessary, against oil companies. And considering that the
remedy against cartelization is already provided by law, the public
respondent trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and gravely abused its
discretion when it ordered the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to open and
examine the books of account of the Big 3 and allowed private respondent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Cabigao, a certified public accountant, to become part of the panel of
examiners. Clearly, the RTC not only failed to uphold the law but worse, he
contravened the law.
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. 93
In this case, Pasang Masda's allegation that its members consume
petroleum products is not sufficient to show that they have legal interest in
the matter being litigated considering; that there are other oil players in the
market aside from the Big 3. Jurisprudence mandates that legal interest
must be actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simply
contingent or expectant. 94 Such is not the situation in this case. In fact,
there is no showing that Pasang Masda has something to gain or lose in the
outcome of the case. Thus, it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of
public respondent RTC in allowing Pasang Masda to intervene despite its
failure to comply with the first requirement.
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. 95
All told, the Court finds grave abuse of discretion on the part of public
respondent RTC as to its issuance of the Assailed Orders.
WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Petitions are hereby GRANTED. The
April 27, 2009, May 5, 2009, June 23, 2009, and July 7, 2009 Orders of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26, in Civil Case No. 03-106101 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order dated
August 4, 2009 is hereby made PERMANENT. Accordingly, the Petition for
Declaratory Relief is ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, J.C. Reyes,
Jr., Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Lopez, Delos Santos and Gaerlan, JJ.,
concur.
Zalameda, * J., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes

* No part due to prior participation in the CA proceedings.

1. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, pp. 2-62; rollo, G.R. No. 189060; pp. 3-61; and
rollo, G.R. No. 18933, pp. 3-71.
2. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, pp. 64-66; penned by Presiding Judge Silvino T.
Pampilo, Jr.
3. Id. at 68.

4. Id. at 1166-1167.
5. Id. at 70-71.

6. Id. at 136-142.

7. Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. — The penalty of

prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from two hundred
to six thousand pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take
part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in
restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free
competition in the market;
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or
commerce, or shall combine with any other person or persons to monopolize
said merchandise or object in order to n

3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any

merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise or
object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or agent,
wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with
any person likewise engaged in the manufacture, production, processing,
assembling or importation of such merchandise or object of commerce or
with any other persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making
transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price
in any part of the Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the
Philippines, or of any article in the manufacture of which such manufactured,
produced, processed, or imported merchandise or object of commerce is
used.
If the offense mentioned in this Article affects any food substance, motor fuel
or lubricants, or other articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of
prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, it being sufficient for the
imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken toward carrying out
the purposes of the combination.

Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination

mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and being the subject thereof, shall
be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines. Whenever any of the
offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, the
president and each one of the directors or managers of said corporation or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 association or its agent or representative in the Philippines in case of a
foreign corporation or association, who shall have knowingly permitted or
failed to prevent the commission of such offenses, shall be held liable as
principals thereof.

8. SECTION 11. Anti-Trust Safeguards . — To ensure fair competition and prevent

cartels and monopolies in the Industry, the following acts are hereby
prohibited:

a) Cartelization which means any agreement, combination or concerted

action by refiners, importers and/or dealers, or their representatives, to fix
prices, restrict outputs or divide markets, either by products or by areas, or
allocate markets, either by products or by areas, in restraint of trade or free
competition, including any contractual stipulation which prescribes pricing
levels and profit margins.

9. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, pp. 181-187.

10. Id. at 144-180 and 246-278.

11. Id. at 188-189; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Oscar P. Barrientos.

12. Id. at 514.

13. Id. at 190-197.

14. Rollo , G.R. No. 189333, p. 13; and rollo, G.R. No. 189060, p. 15.
15. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, pp. 198-201.

16. Id. at 65-66.

17. Id. at 578-632.

18. Id. at 279-282.

19. Id. at 68.

20. Id. at 205-230.

21. Id. at 321-338.

22. Id. at 1166-1167.

23. Id. at 70-71.

24. Id. at 71.

25. Id. at 235.

26. Id. at 677-680.

27. Id. at 112.

28. Id. at 2-62.

29. Id. at 74-76.

30. Rollo , G.R. No. 189060, pp. 3-61.

31. Rollo , G.R. No. 189333, pp. 3-71.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 32. Id. at 554-555 and Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, pp. 770-A-770-B (Volume
I).
33. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, pp. 682-770.

34. Id., Volume III, pp. 1840-1883 (Volume III); penned by Presiding Justice Andres
B. Reyes, Jr. (now retired SC Justice) and concurred in by Associate Justices
Vicente S.E. Veloso and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
35. Id. at 1908-1914.

36. Id. at 1982.

37. Id. at 1987-1991; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and
concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Rodil V.
Zalameda (now a Member of this Court).

38. Id., Volume I, pp. 12-13.

39. Rollo , G.R. No. 189060, p. 22.

40. Rollo , G.R. No. 189333, pp. 21-22.

41. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, pp. 13-24.

42. Id. at 24-26.

43. Id. at 29-32.

44. Id. at 32-34.

45. Id. at 421-423.

46. Id. at 428-432.

47. Id. at 432-438.

48. Rollo , G.R. No. 189060, pp. 22-32.

49. Id. at 28-32.

50. Id. at 22-28.

51. Id. at 26.

52. Id. at 32-41.

53. Id. at 41-45.

54. Id. at 46-49.

55. Rollo , G.R. No. 189333, pp. 23-36.

56. Id. at 36-48.

57. Id. at 48-51.
58. Id. at 51-53.

59. Id. at 54-58.

60. Id. at 58-60.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 61. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume II, pp. 1687-1689.
62. Id., Volume I, pp. 789-792 and Volume II, p. 1246.

63. Id., Volume II, pp. 1689-1690.

64. Id., Volume I, pp. 783-789.
65. Id., Volume II, pp. 1663-1668.

66. Id. at 1668-1669.

67. 539 Phil. 509 (2006).
68. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume II, pp. 1669-1670.

69. Id. at 1670-1674.

70. Rollo , G.R. No. 189333, pp. 599-602.
71. Id.
72. Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court reads:

Section 1. Who may file petition. —

Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial
Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property
or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607
of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.
73. Tambunting, Jr. v. Sps. Sumabat , 507 Phil. 94, 98-99 (2005).
74. Monetary Board v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 751 Phil. 176, 182 (2015).

75. Rollo , G.R. No. 188760, Volume I, p. 182.

76. Id. at 185.
77. Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 744 Phil. 497, 509-510 (2014).

78. City of Lapu-Lapu v. Philippine Economic Zone Authority, 748 Phil. 473, 511
(2014).
79. Id.
80. 114 Phil. 756 (1962).

81. Id. at 762.

82. 378 Phil. 848 (1999).
83. Id. at 868-869.
84. 602 Phil. 64 (2009).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 85. Id. at 80-83.

86. Vasco v. Court of Appeals , 171 Phil. 673, 677 (1978); Cabanas v. Pilapil, 157
Phil. 97, 101-102, (1974); and Nery v. Lorenzo, 150-A Phil. 241, 248-249
(1972).

87. G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969, August 6, 2019.

88. G.R. Nos. 237938 & 237944-45, December 4, 2018.
89. Supra note 67.

90. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8424 (Approved on December 11, 1997) or the
Tax Reform Act of 1997 provides:
SECTION 5. Power of the Commissioner to Obtain Information, and to
Summon, Examine, and Take Testimony of Persons. — In ascertaining the
correctness of any return, or in making a return when none has been made,
or in determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax, or in
collecting any such liability, or in evaluating tax compliance, the
Commissioner is authorized:
(A) To examine any book, paper, record, or other data which may be relevant
or material to such inquiry;
xxx xxx xxx
91. Sections 3515 and 3516 of Presidential Decree No. 1464, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9135 (Approved on April 27, 2001) or An Act Amending
Certain Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1464, provide:

SEC. 3515. Compliance Audit or Examination of Records. — The

importers/customs brokers shall allow any customs officer authorized by the
Bureau of Customs to enter during office hours any premises or place where
the records referred to in the preceding section are kept to conduct audit
examination, inspection, verification and/or investigation of those records
either in relation to specific transactions or to the adequacy and integrity of
the manual or electronic system or systems by which such records are
created and stored. For this purpose, a duly authorized customs officer shall
have full and free access to all books, records, and documents necessary or
relevant for the purpose of collecting the proper duties and taxes.
In addition, the authorized customs officer may make copies of, or take
extracts from any such documents. The records or documents must, as soon
as practicable after copies of such have been taken, be returned to the
person in charge of such documents.
A copy of any such document certified by or on behalf of the importer/broker
is admissible in evidence in all courts as if it were the original.

An authorized customs officer is not entitled to enter any premises under this
Section unless, before so doing, the officer produces to the person occupying
or apparently in charge of the premises written evidence of the fact that he
or she is an authorized officer. The person occupying or apparently in charge
of the premises entered by an officer shall provide the officer with all
reasonable facilities and assistance for the effective exercise of powers under
this Section.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Unless otherwise provided herein or in other provisions of law, the Bureau of
Customs may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the proper regional
trial court within whose jurisdiction the matter falls. The court may punish
contumacy or refusal as contempt. In addition, the fact that the
importer/broker denies the authorized customs officer full and free access to
importation records during the conduct of a post-entry audit shall create a
presumption of inaccuracy in the transaction value declared for their
imported goods and constitute grounds for the Bureau of Customs to conduct
a re-assessment of such goods.
This is without prejudice to the criminal sanctions imposed by this Code and
administrative sanctions that the Bureau of Customs may impose against
contumacious importers under existing laws and regulations including the
authority to hold delivery or release of their imported articles.
SEC. 3516. Scope of the Audit. —

(a) The audit of importers shall be undertaken:

(1) When firms are selected by a computer-aided risk management system,
the parameters of which are to be based on objective and quantifiable data
and are to be approved by the Secretary of Finance upon recommendation of
the Commissioner of Customs. The criteria for selecting firms to be audited
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Relative magnitude of customs revenue from the firm;
(b) The rates of duties of the firm's imports;

(c) The compliance track record of the firm; and

(d) An assessment of the risk to revenue of the firm's import activities.
(2) When errors in the import declaration are detected;
(3) When firms voluntarily request to be audited, subject to the approval of
the Commissioner of Customs.

(b) Brokers shall be audited to validate audits of their importer clients and/or
fill in information gaps revealed during an audit of their importer clients.
92. Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court reads:
Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest
against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or
other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer
thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The
court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or
not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
93. The Board of Regents of the Mindanao State University v. Osop, 682 Phil. 437,
461 (2012).
94. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Heirs of Estanislao Miñoza, 656
Phil. 537, 547 (2011).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 95. B. Sta. Rita & Co., Inc. v. Gueco, 716 Phil. 776, 785-786 (2013).
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing
portions.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com