Coa v Pampilo

PARENS PATRIAE

Court Supreme Court, En Banc

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

G.R. No. 189060
G.R. No. 189333

Date June 30 2020

Petitioner PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTEX

PHILIPPINES, INC., AND PETRON CORPORATION, NECESSARY
PARTIES.
CHEVRON PHILIPPINES
PETRON CORPORATION

Responden Social Justice Society (SJS)

t

Relevant  Parens Patriae –PARENS PATRIAE’ or ‘guardian of the rights of

Topic/s the people,’ there is the conspicuous absence of a government
agency independent and powerful enough to function exclusively
as a true and aqqressive ‘watchdog’ that might be called
‘Champion of Children’s Rights.’
 RA 849- “Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1998.”
 Section 13 of RA 8479
 Section 2, Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution provides for the
COA's audit jurisdiction
 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
 Jusrisdiction of the RTC and COA

SC Ruling Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On April 27, 2009, public respondent RTC issued the first assailed
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].

 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.

Concepts  Parens Patriae –PARENS PATRIAE’ or ‘guardian of the rights of

the people,’ there is the conspicuous absence of a government
agency independent and powerful enough to function exclusively
as a true and aqqressive ‘watchdog’ that might be called
‘Champion of Children’s Rights.’
 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
FACTS:

On March 21, 2003, private respondent Social Justice Society (SJS), a political
parry duly registered with the Commission of 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 1867 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. Vladmir 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.

 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 a9counts
of the Big 3 and to submit a report thereon within three (3) months from receipt of
the Order.19

 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

 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 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

 On August 6, 2010, the CA rendered a Decision34 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 had no legal interest in the matter.

 On June 4, 2013, this Court issued a Resolution36 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

Resolution37 denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by private
respondents.

Petitioners’ Respondent’s Response RTC/CFI Ruling

Complaint

 The  The SC said it is the he Consolidated Petitions are

agencies say Department of Energy- hereby GRANTED. The April
it was Department of Justice 27, 2009, May 5, 2009, June
beyond their (DOE-DOJ) Joint Task 23, 2009, and July 7, 2009
mandates to Force that has the sole Orders of the Regional Trial
conduct power and authority to Court of Manila, Branch 26, in
audits monitor, investigate, Civil Case No. 03-106101 are
relative to and endorse the filing hereby REVERSED and SET
anti-trust of a complaint against ASIDE. The Temporary
violations. oil companies. Restraining Order dated
 The trial court initially August 4, 2009 is hereby
resolved to refer the made PERMANENT.
case to the DOE-DOJ Accordingly, the Petition for
Joint Task Force for Declaratory Relief is ordered
investigation and DISMISSED
determination of  An action for
whether the Big 3 were declaratory relief is not
in violation of Section the proper remedy.
11 (Anti-Trust  The DOE-DOJ Joint
Safeguards) of Task Force is duly
Republic Act 8479 or authorized by law to
 the Downstream Oil investigate and to order
Industry Deregulation the prosecution of
Act of 199 cartelization.

ISSUE-HELD-RATIO:

ISSUE/S HELD AND RATIO

OSG contends that public  Similarly, in this case, an action
respondent RTC for declaratory relief may no
 [It] ordered [the COA, the BIR, and longer be allowed considering
the BOC] to do a patently ultra vires that private respondents are not
act, directing COA to audit beyond merely asking for a declaration of
its constitutional mandate and their rights but are actually asking
directing BIR and BOC to examine public respondent RTC to
outside their statutory powers. determine whether there was a
 invoked parens patriae and Rule 27 violation of Section 11 of RA
on Production or Inspection of 8479, for which the Big 3 may be
Documents in [its] compulsory prosecuted and found criminally
designation of COA, BIR and BOC liable. And since there is already
as anti-trust auditors while usurping an alleged breach, it cannot be
the authority of the [DOE-DOJ the subject of a declaratory relief.
Joint] Task Force created by the Oil Public respondent RTC therefore
Deregulation Law for anti-trust committed grave abuse of
monitoring. discretion in not dismissing the
 isregarded Due Process, to enforce Amended Petition.
[its] void orders, by threatening  RTC initially resolved to refer the
COA, BIR, and BOC with contempt instant case to the DOE-DOJ
despite lack of notice and being Joint Task Force for investigation
non-parties to the case. and determination of whether the
Big 3 were in violation of Section
Chevron interposes the following 11 of RA 8479. However, upon
issues: receipt of the report of the DOE-
Whether [private respondents'] DOJ Joint Task Force that there
petition in civil case no. 03-106101: was no violation committed by the
Big 3, the RTC, instead of
(i) raises a justiciable controversy or dismissing the case, ordered the
actual case that is ripe for judicial COA, the BIR, and the BOC to
determination; and open and examine the books of
accounts of the Big 3 and even
(ii) requires exercise of power and allowed private respondent
authority beyond the scope of the Cabigao to be part of the panel of
"judicial power" of courts as examiners. In doing so, the trial
provided under the constitution; court divested the DOE-DOJ Joint
Task Force of its power and
Ii. Whether the [public respondent
rtc] of manila has jurisdiction to authority and vested the same to
conduct a preliminary investigation the COA, the BIR, the BOC and
on whether players in the private respondent Cabigao.
downstream oil industry have
committed a violation of the anti-
trust safeguards under r.a. 8479.
[39]
G.R. No. 189333, Petron alleges
A.[public respondent rtc] committed
grave abuse of discretion amouting
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]

IN GENERAL
(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.

RULING/OTHER NOTES: 
, 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.