8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

1/12

Statute Construed as a Whole and in Relation to Other Statutes

A. Statute Construed as a Whole

113 - Aquino v Quezon City

G.R. No. 1373!

Az"una #.

FACTS:

This case involves two petitions for review on certiorari involving the decisions declaring valid theauction sales of two real properties b y the Quezon City Local Governent for failure to pay realproperty ta!es" The first case deals with a lot forerly owned by petitioners A#uino" $etitioners

withheld payent of the real property ta!es as a for of protest for the governent of then $resident%arcos" As a result of the nonpayent& the property was sold b y the Quezon City local governent&through the Treasurer's (ffice& at public auction to private respondent Aida Linao& the highest bidder"

$etitioners claied that they learned of the sale about ) years later" They fi!ed as action for annulentof title& re*conveyance& and daages against the re spondents" The seconds case deals with a property

located in Cubao& Quezon City in the nae of Soloon Torrado" According to petitioner heirs& Torradopaid ta!es on the iproveents on Lot + but not on the lot itself because the Treasurer's (ffice couldnot locate the inde! card for that property" For failure to pay real property ta!es fro ,-./ to ,-+)& the

City Treasurer sent a 0otice of 1ntent to Sell to Torrado to his address indicated in the ta! register&which siply states as '2utuan City" The notice was returned by reason of '1nsufficient Address" 0e!t

sent was a 0otice of Sale of 3elin#uent $roperty" This was sent to the sae address and siilarlyreturned unclaied" Thereafter& a public auction was held and the lot was sold to 4eronica 2aluyot&who ortgaged the property to Spouses 5y who then sold it to 306 Corp for failure to pay the

ortgaged debt" Also& a 0otice of Sold $roperty was subse#uently sent to Torrado which was returnedunclaied"

1SS57:8(0 there a failure on the part of the Quezon City Local Governent to satisfy the notice

re#uireents before selling the property for ta! delin#uency9

5L10G:

3efinitely& there is no ore logical way to construe the whole chapter on 'Collection of eal $ropertyTa! ;Sections

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

2/12

,/th of April& ,-),& the petitioner& upon visiting the office of the cler> of the Court of First 1nstance of

Cebu& discovered that the respondent had fraudulently obtained the registration of said lot in his ownnae and that a certificate of title for said lot had been issued to said respondent on Banuary )& ,-)@

that the petitioner& due to his long absence fro Cebu& was unable to appear in court in the landregistration proceedings and to defend his rights and that this action is his only reedy to recover the

property in #uestion" De therefore as>s that the decision of the Court of First 1nstance in regard to said

lot 0o" . pursuant to the Coprehensive Agrarian efor Law ;"A" 0o" // of the $hilippines" $rivate respondent re?ected thegovernent's offer& pointing out that the land should be valued at the higher price per hectare"

$rivate respondent filed a $etition for Bust Copensation in the TC of 3avao& sitting as a SpecialAgrarian Court" Dowever& the TC disissed its petition on the ground that private respondent should

have appealed to the 3epartent of Agrarian efor Ad?udication 2oard ;3AA2=& pursuant to thelatter's evised ules of $rocedure& before recourse to it ;the TC= could be had" $rivate respondentoved for reconsideration but its otion was denied on (ctober ,E& ,--" $rivate respondent therefore

filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals& contending that a petition for ?ust copensationunder "A" 0o" //

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

3/12

The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a 0otice of Levy on 7!ecution fro a certificate ofTitle covering a parcel of real property" The inscription was caused to be ade by the private

respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title 0o" 0*.-@.E of the egister of 3eeds of %ari>ina& issued inthe nae of the spouses 5ychocde& and was later carried over to and annotated on Transfer Certificateof Title 0o" 0*,@-,. of the sae registry& issued in the nae of the spouses Sa?onas& who purchased

the parcel of land fro the 5ychocdes& and are now the pe titioners in this case"

The sub?ect property was bought by Sa?onas spouses on Septeber ,-+E and caused the annotation oftheir adverse clai on August ,-+" The 3eed of Sale was e!ecuted upon the full payent of thepurchase price and the sae was registered only on August ,-+ of TCT 0o" .-@.E as 7ntry 0o" ,)E)+E"

1ssue:

8hich should be preferred between the notice of levy on e!ecution and the deed of absolute sale" The3eed of Absolute Sale was e!ecuted on Septeber & ,-+& but was registered only on August )+&

,-+en together& siply eans that the

cancellation of the adverse clai is still necessary to render it ineffective& otherwise& the inscriptionwill reain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property" For if the adverse clai has

already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period& its cancellation is no longer necessary andthe process of cancellation would be a useless cereony"

To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse clai as absolute and without #ualification liited tothirty days defeats the very purpose for which the statute provides for the reedy of an inscription of

adverse clai& as the annotation of an adverse clai is a easure designed to protect the interest of aperson over a piece of real property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwiseprovided for by the Land egistration Act or Act -/ ;now $"3" ,et value' as basis for coputing the 'assessed value'

6582

Sec" ) of $3 )/ or the eal $roperty Ta! CodeI and Sec" )< which covers other property sub?ect to

assessent and to bac> ta!es should be construed together and both given effect& for if Sec" ) is theonly applicable provision& then Sec" )< which re#uires payent of bac> ta!es will be renderedsuperfluous and nugatory"

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

4/12

Corollary of the rule that the whole statute should be given effect and construed as to not nullify or

render nugatory another provision of the sae statute"

11* $ #avellana v ayo

G.R. No. 1*:1: $ 8e"e'er /:+ 1:)/

;arrera+ #.

FACTS: The petitioners are duly elected and #ualified ebers of the %unicipal Council of the

%unicipality of 2uenavista& 1loilo and that the respondent at the tie the acts herein belowcoplained of too> place& was and still is the duly*elected and #ualified %ayor of the %unicipality"The %unicipal Council of 2uenavista ;Council= unaniously approved esolution 0o" e notes of the proceedings" Daving thus elected a teporary presiding officer and a

secretary of the Council& they proceeded to d o business" (n the subse#uent Council eetings& the%ayor& 4ice %ayor& ) Councilors and Secretary were still not around" 8hen the %inutes of the$roceeding was presented to the %ayor& the latter refused to act upon said inutes& or particularly to

approve or disapprove the resolution as approved by the Council& the %ayor declaring the sessionsabove referred to as null and void and not in accordance with"

1SS57: 8hether or not the sessions held by the Council were valid

5L10G: This Court ;the trial court=& after perusal of a ll the records of this case has reached theconclusion that the sessions held by the petitioner during the absence of the respondent %ayor were

perfectly valid and legal" The attendance of the %ayor is not essential to the validity of the session aslong as there is #uoru constituted in accordance with law" To declare that the proceedings of the

petitioners were null and void is to encourage recalcitrant public officials who would frustrate valid

session for political end or consideration" $ublic interest will iensely suffer& if a ayor who belongsto one political group refuses to call or attend a session& because the Council is controlled by another

political group" ;And this was upheld by the SC"=

8e find said award proper under Article ). of the new Civil Code& E considering that according to thetrial court& he ;Golez= was able to prove that he suffered the sae& as a conse#uence of appellant's

refusal to perfor his official duty& not withstanding the action ta>en by the $rovincial Fiscal an the$rovincial 2oard upholding the validity of the session in #uestion"

37C1S1(0: Trial Court decision affired"

11: $ Asturias Su=ar Central v. Co''issioner o Custo's

G.R. No. 1:337 $ Se,te'er 3's e!tension of e*e!portation andSpecial 1port Ta! 2ond no" / which was to e!pire the following day& citing reasons for its failure to

e!port the reaining ?ute bags within the period of one year" Dowever& this re#uest was denied by theCoissioner"3ue to the petitioner's failure to show proof of the e!portation of the balance of +/&Enown

its policy to consider the one*year period entioned in the law as non*e!tendible"& would& initially& bein order"(nly where the court of last resort has not previously interpreted the statute is the rule applicable that

courts will give consideration to construction by adinistrative or e!ecutive departents of the state"

The foral or inforal interpretation or practical construction of an abiguous or uncertain statute orlaw by the e!ecutive departent or other agency charged with its adinistration or enforceent isentitled to consideration and the highest respect fro the courts& and ust be accorded appropriate

weight in deterining the eaning of the law& especially when the construction or interpretation is longcontinued and unifor or is conteporaneous with the first wor>ings of the statute& or when the

enactent of the statute was suggested by such agency"

Considering that the 2ureau of Custos is the office charged with ipleenting and enforcing the

provisions of our Tariff and Custos Code& the construction placed by it thereon should be givencontrolling weight"

1n applying the doctrine or principle of respect for adinistrative or practical construction& the courtsoften refer to several factors which ay be regarded as bases of the principle& as factors leading the

courts to give the principle controlling weight in particular instances& or as independent rules intheselves" These factors are the respect due the governental agencies charged with adinistration&their copetence& e!pertness& e!perience& and infored ?udgent and the fact that they fre#uently are

the drafters of the law they interpret that the agency is the one on which the legislature ust rely toadvise it as to the practical wor>ing out of the statute& and practical application of the statute presents

the agency with uni#ue opportunity and e!periences for discovering deficiencies& inaccuracies& oriproveents in the statute"

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

5/12

Statute Construed as a Whole and in Relation to Other Statutes

;. Statute Construed in Relation to Constitution and Other Statutes

1/< $ (8 v Colle"tor o nternal Revenue

:< (hil )7!

#u=o+ #.

FACTS * The plaintiff $hilippine Long 3istance Telephone Copany is a corporation organized andcarrying on business under a special franchise granted by the $hilippine Legislature& Act" 0o" EE/

approved on 0oveber )+& ,-)+& as aended by Coonwealth Act" 0o" @.& and under the franchisecontained in Act" 0o" ,E/+ of the $hilippine Coission originally granted to Bohn 1" Sabin and LouisGlass on Buly /& ,-@s are sub?ect to the franchise ta! in the aount of $E&@//"s and accounts of the corporations& and for the payent of a reasonable percentageof gross earnings into the Treasury of $hilippine 1slands& or of the province or unicipality

within which such franchises are granted and e!ercised """"""

That all franchises or rights granted under this act """""" shall provide"" for the payent of areasonable percentage of gross earnings to the Treasury of the $hilippines& or of the

province or unicipality wherein such franchises are grafted and e!ercised""""""

The acts of the Legislature granting the franchises should be construed so as not to contravene orviolate the organic acts above entioned& for otherwise said legislative acts would be null and void or

unconstitutional" The organic acts use the word earnings" A person ay have earned his salary butay not have collected it& or ay be unable to collect it fro an insolvent eployer" A person cannotdeand payent of his unpaid salary unless he has earned it" This would show that to collect is a

different act fro to earn" Conse#uently& the uncollected gross receipts which should be construed as

eaning the sae thing as gross earnings should be sub?ect to the franchise ta!"

1/1 $ City o Na=a v A=na

G.R. No. 3)

0artin+ #.

Facts:(n Bune ,e effec t in ,-.@& the year it was approved but in the ne!t succeeding year

after the year of its approval and that the ta!es they paid in ,-.@ on their gross sales fo the #uarter froBuly ,& ,-.@ to Septeber E@& ,-.@ were illegal and should be refunded" The City treasurer denied the

clai for refund of the aounts in#uestion"

$rivate respondents then filed a coplaint see>ing to have (rdinance 0o" E/@ declared effective only

in the year following year of its approval& ,-.," To have Sections & / and + of (rdinance 0o" E/@declared un?ust& oppressive and arbitrary and therefore null and void and to re#uire the City treasurerto refund the sus being claied with interests" 1n their answer& petitioners clai that private

respondents were not copelled but voluntarily ade the payents of their ta!es under (rdinance 0o"E/@" That the said ordinacne was published in accordance with the law" That in accordance with

republic Act 0o" E@< ;charter of the City of 0age= an ordinance ta>es effect a fter the tenth day follwingits passage unless otherwise stated in said ordinance"

(n (ctober -& ,-.,& the respondent Budge rendered ?udgent holding that (rdinance 0o" E/@& series,-.@ of the City of 0aga was enforceable in the year following the date of its approval that is ,-., andre#uired the petitioners to reiburse the aounts prayed for and corresponding interests"

1ssue:

8(0 the (rdinance shall cover ,-.@"

Deld:

0o" The ordinance in #uestion is the one that changes the graduated sales ta! on gross sales or receiptsto a percentage ta! on their gross sales K An (rdinance which definitely falls within the clause ofSection )E@- of the evised Adinistrative Code" Accordingly it should be effective and enforceable

in the ne!t succeeding year after the year of its approval or in ,-.,"

1t will be easily noted that Section of the evised Adinistrative Code conteplates of two tpes ofunicipal ordinances& naely a unicipal ordinance which changes a unicipal license ta already ine!istence and an ordinance which creates an entirely new ta!"

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

6/12

1// $ Re,uli" v Asun"ion

/31 SCRA /11

8avide #r.+ #.

Facts: Ale!ander 3ionisio y %anio& eber of the $0$& was assigned to the Central $olice 3istrict

Coand Station ) in 0ovaliches& when he was dispatched to 3ualay Street to respond to acoplaint that a person was creating trouble there" 3ionioso proceeded to the place& where he

subse#uently shot to death TSgt" oeo Sadang" 8hile trial for hoicide was already in progress inthe TC of QC& the case was disissed for refilling with the Sandiganbayan on the ground that it is theSandiganbayan which has ?urisdiction over the case" The private prosecutor oved for disissal citing

the opinion of the Sec of the 3(B that cries coitted by $0$ ebers arenot cognizable by theSandiganbayan because they fall within the e!clusive ?urisdiction of the regular courts as provided inA /-.< and the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special court as stated in the

,-.Econstitution and as the ,-+. constitution provides that the present anti*graftcourt shall continue tofunction and e!ercise it ?urisdiction"

1SS57:," 8hether the ter regular courtsI includes the Sandiganbayan)" 8hether all offenses coited by public officer or eployee with penaltyhigher than prision

correctional would autoaticaly be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan"

D7L3:,"Mes& Sandiganbayan is a regular Court" egular courts are those within the ?udicial departent of thegovernent& naely& the Supree Court and such lower courts which as established by law& under

Section ,/& Chapter & 2oo> 11 of the Adinistrative Code of ,-+.& includes the Court of Appeals&Sandiganbayan& Court of Ta! Appeals& egional TrialCourts& Shari'a 3istrict Courts& %etropolitan Trial

Courts& %unicipal Trial Court& %unicipal Circuit Trial Courts& and Shari'a Circuit Courts"Accordingly&the ter regular courts in Section / of "A" 0o" /-.< eans civil courts" This is inline with the

purpose of the law to reove the ?urisdiction of Court* %artial over criinal cases involving $0$

ebers due to reorganization and turning $0$ into civilian in character whichin return andates thetransfer of criinal cases against ebers of the $0$ to the civilian courts"

)" 0o& 1f the allegation in the inforation of the offense of any public officer is not related to hisfunction in his public office then TC has the e!clusive ?urisdiction over the case"

The Court sanctioned the transfer of cases fro the TC for lac> of ?urisdiction to the Sandiganbayan"The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan is a regular court" 8hile it is a special court& it is a regular court

within the conte!t of A /-.< because it is a court norally functioning with continuity within the?urisdiction vested on itI and that the ter regular courts is used in Sec" / of A /-.< to distinguish

the said courts for courts*artial for it see>s to divest the latter of such ?urisdiction and andates itstransfers to the forer pursuant to the policy of the law to establish a police force national in scope andcivilian in character" The Sandiganbayan is a regular court as stated in the Adinistrative Code of

,-+."Dowever& for the Sandiganbayan to have ?urisdiction it is necessary that the offenses werecoitted by public officers in relation to their office" 1n here &there is no indication that the trouble*

a>er was the victi and that he was shot by 3ionisio in the course of the latterHs ission" As such&the court directed the TC of QC to conduct a preliinary hearing within ,< fro receipt of decision&to deterine if the crie was coitted in relation to public office" 1f it be deterined in the

affirative& the case shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan as if the sae were originally fined withit" (therwise& the TC should proceed with the trial of the case and render ?udgent thereon"

1/3 $ (hili,,ine nternational radin= Cor,. v An=eles

/)3 SCRA !/1

orres #r.+ #.

$1TC issued Adinistrative (rder 0o" S(C$7C +-*@+*@, under which applications to the $1TC for

iportation fro the $eopleHs epublic of China ust be accopanied by a viable and confirede!port progra of $hilippine products" $1TC barred eington and Firestone fro iporting products

fro China on the ground that they were not able to coply with the re#uireent of the saidadinistrative order" Thereafter they filed a petition for prohibition and andaus against the saidorder of $1TC in which the trial court upheld and declared to be null and void for being

unconstitutional" The court contends further authority to process and approve applications for iportsS(C$7C and to issue rules and regulations pursuant to L(1 , has already been repealed by 7( ,EE

issued on February ).& ,-+." Dence& the $1TC filed a certiorari see>ing the reversal of the saiddecision"

1SS57: 8hether or not $1TCHs Adinistrative (rder +-*@+*@, is valid"

D7L3: The Supree Court held that $1TC is epowered to issue such order nevertheless& the said A(is invalid within the conte!t of Article ) of the 0ew Civil Code" The Court cited Tanada vs Tuvera

which states that all statues including those of local application and private laws shall be published ascondition for their effectivity& which shall begin ,< days after publication in the (fficial Gazette or a

newspaper of general circulation unless a different effectivity date is fi!ed by the legislature" The A(under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity since it is

punitive in character"

1/! $ 8ialdas v (erdi"es

1ed the clear provision of Sec" ,--"

1/ $ i"hau"o v A,ostol

!! (hil 13*

Street+ #.

Facts:

$etitioner& a corporation duly organized under the $hil" laws& engaged for several years in the businessof iporting carabao and other draft anials& and was desirous of iporting& fro $no*$ehn& ashipent of draft cattle and bovine cattle for the anufacture of seru" Dowever& respondent 3irector

of Agriculture refused to adit said cattle e!cept upon condition that drafts be iunized" $etitionerhowever contends that the respondent has no authority over the atter& invo>ing section ,./) of the

Adinistrative Code& as aended by Act 0o" E@

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

7/12

1ssue: 8hether or not section ,..@ ;and other siilar acts= has been repealed by iplication by Act

E@ of court of the ?ustice of the peace the power to appoint should not be considered lodged insaid ayor" Lastly& the ?udge held that the intent of the law in placing the appointent of cler>s in the

?ustice of the peace is to prevent the cler>s fro the iportunities and pressure of pre?udicial politics"

1SS57 * 8(0 the provisions of ep" Act 0o" ,

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

8/12

The SC ay have the power to set aside any ?udgent& order or proceeding under Sec" ,,E however

under Sec" ed the lower court to re#uire accused*appellant to pay the fine of

$nown rule of legal hereneutics that penal statutes are to be strictly construed against thegovernent and liberally in favor of the accused" 1n the interpretation of a penal statute& the tendency

is to give it careful scrutiny& and to construe it with such strictness as to safeguard the rights of thedefendant" Considering that Article E- of the evised $enal Code& as aended& is favorable to theaccused*appellant& the sae should be ade applicable to hi" Thus applying Article E- of the evised

$enal Code& as aended& to the accused*appellant& he cannot a lso be re#uired to serve his civil liabilityto the offended party in for of subsidiary iprisonent in case of insolvency because this is no

longer re#uired by the aforesaid article"

13< $ (eo,le v Ato,

/*) SCRA 1)3

(an=anian+ #.

Facts:

STAT5T7: Sec" ,, of A ./

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

9/12

charitable or public welfare but not for religious purposes"

TC rendered a ?udgent finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

1ssue:

8(0 the ter charitable or public purposeI should be construed in its broadest sense so as toinclude religious purpose"

Deld:

0o" The Court ruled that $3 ,

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

10/12

1s ?ustice of peace included in the prohibition of Section / of the evised 7lection Code9

Deld:

Mes& it is included in Section ewise invo>ed by the defendant*appellee"5nder the said rule& a person& ob?ect or thing oitted fro an enueration ust be held to have beenoitted intentionally" Dowever& it is applicable only if the oission has been clearly established" 1n the

case at bar& the legislature did not e!clude or oit ?ustices of the peace fro the enueration ofofficers precluded fro engaging in partisan political activities" 1n Section ers" The act priarily see>sto protect large cattle against theft to a>e it easy for the recovery and return to owners& whichencouraged the to regulate the registration and slaughter of large cattle"

Several years prior to the enact ent of the said law& an epideic struc> the $hilippine islands which

threatened the survival of carabaos in the country" 1n soe provinces seventy& eighty and even onehundred percent of their local ca rabaos perished due to the said epideic" This drove the prices ofcarabaos up to four or five*fold& as a conse#uence carabao theft becae rapant due to the lu!urious

prices of these wor> anials" %oreover& this greatly affected the food production of the country whichpropted the governent to iport rice fro its neighboring countries"

As these wor> anials are vested with public interest for they are of fundaental use for theproduction of crops& the governent was propted to pass a law that would protect these wor>

anials" The purpose of the law is to stabilize the nuber of carabaos in the country as well as toredistribute the throughout the entire archipelago" 1t was also the sae reason why large cattles fit forfar wor> was prohibited to be slaughtered for huan consuption" %ost iportantly& the

respondentHs carabao was found to be fit for far wor>"

These reasons satisfy the re#uisites for the valid e!ercise of police power"

Act 0o" ,,. is not an e!ercise of the inherent power of einent doain" The said law d oes not

constitute the ta>ing of carabaos for public purpose it ?ust serves as a ere regulation for theconsuption of these private properties for the protection of general welfare and public interest" Thus&

the deand for copensation of the owner ust fail"

13) $ City o 0anila v Chinese Co''unity o 0anila

!< ,hil 3!:

FACTS: $etitioner ;City of %anila= filed a petition praying that certain lands be e!propriated for thepurpose of constructing a public iproveent naely& the e!tension of izal Avenue& %anila and

claiing that such e!propriation was necessary"

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

11/12

Derein defendants& on the other hand& alleged ;a= that no necessity e!isted for said e!propriation and

;b= that the land in #uestion was a ceetery& which had been used as such for any years& and wascovered with sepulchres and onuents& and that the sae should not be converted into a street for

public purposes"

The lower court ruled that there was no necessity for the e!propriation of the particular strip of land in

#uestion"

$etitioner therefore assails the decision of the lower court claiing that it ;petitioner= has the authority

to e!propriate any land it ay desire that the only function of the court in such proceedings is toascertain the value of the land in #uestion that neither the court nor the owners of the land can in#uireinto the advisable purpose of the e!propriation or a s> any #uestions concerning the necessities therefor

that the courts are ere appraisers of the land involved in e!propriation proceedings& and& when thevalue of the land is fi!ed by the ethod adopted by the law& to render a ?udgent in favor of thedefendant for its value"

1SS57: 80 the courts ay in#uire into and hear proof upon the necessity of the e!propriation9

D7L3: Mes" The courts have the power to restrict the e!ercise of einent doain to the actualreasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law" 8hen the unicipalcorporation or entity attepts to e!ercise the authority conferred& it ust coply with the conditions

accopanying such authority" The necessity for conferring the authority upon a unicipal corporationto e!ercise the right of einent doain is& without #uestion& within the power of the legislature" 2utwhether or not the unicipal corporation or entity is e!ercising the right in a particular case under the

conditions iposed by the general authority& is a #uestion that the courts have the right to in#uire into"

137 $ (a=dan=anan v Court o A=rarian Relations

1

;en=zon+ #.

Facts:

1ssue:

Deld:

13* $ 0anila od=e No. 7)1 v Court o A,,eals

G.R. No. !1ers v 0inister o aor and 5',loy'ent

G.R. No. )

Facts:

$etitioner is a federation of unions in govt*owned corps" and in govt schools" 1t petitioned the SC for aruling that $3 +

8/11/2019 Case Digests - 113 to 143

12/12

D7L3:0(" 1t is an old rule of statutory construction that restrictive statutes and acts wc ipose burdens on

the public treasury or wc diinish rights and interests& no atter how broad their ters do notebrace the Sovereign& unless the Sovereign is specifically entioned" The epublic of the $hil" as asovereign cannot be covered by a general ter li>e eployer unless the language used in the law is

clear and specific to that effect"

1SS57 ): %ay governent eployees act through a labor federation which uses the collectivebargaining power to secure increased copensation for its ebers9

D7L3:0(" The ters and conditions of eployent in the Governent including any political subdivision orinstruentality thereof are governed by law" And this is effected through statutes or adinistrative

circulars& rules and regulations and not through Collective 2argaining agreeents"5nder the present constitution& ;,-.E=& G(CC's are now part of the civil service& thus& not allowed to

use concerted activities to get other benefits or higher salaries different fro that provided by law andregulation

1!/ $ 0oil (hili,,ine 5?,loration v Custo's Arrastre Servi"e

G.R. No. /313: $ 8e"e'er 17+ 1:))

Facts:Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped fro abroad on S"S" Leoville& consigned to %obil

$hilippines 7!ploration& 1nc"& %anila" The shipent was discharged to the custody of the CustosArrastre Service& the unit of the 2ureau of Custos then handling arrastre operations therein" The

Custos Arrastre Service later delivered to the bro>er of the consignee three cases only of theshipent" %obil $hilippines 7!ploration& 1nc"& filed suit in the Court of First 1nstance of %anila againstthe Custos Arrastre Service and the 2ureau of Custos to recover the value of the undelivered case

in the aount of $,+&-E"E. plus other daages" 3efendants filed a otion to disiss the coplainton the ground that not being persons under the law&defendants cannot be sued" Appellant contends thatnot all governent entities are iune fro suit that defendant 2ureau of Custos as operator of the

arrastre service at the $ort of %anila& is discharging proprietary functions and as such& can be sued byprivate individuals"

1ssue:8hether or not the defendants can invo>e state iunity

Deld:

0ow& the fact that a non*corporate governent entity perfors a function proprietary in nature doesnot necessarily result in its being suable" 1f said non*governental function is underta>en as an incidentto its governental function& there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign iunity fro suit e!tended

to such governent entity" The 2ureau of Custos& to repeat& is part of the 3epartent of Finance&with no personality of its own apart fro that of the national governent" 1ts priary function is

governental& that of assessing and collecting lawful revenues fro iported articles and all othertariff and custos duties& fees& charges& fines and penalties ;Sec" /@)& "A" ,-E.=" To this function&

arrastre service is a necessary incident" Clearly& therefore& although said arrastre function ay be

deeed proprietary& it is a necessary incident of the priary and governental function of the 2ureauof Custos& so that engaging in the sae does not necessarily render said 2ureau liable to suit" For

otherwise& it could not perfor its governental function without necessarily e!posing itself to suit"Sovereign iunity& granted as to the end& should not be denied as to the necessary eans to that end"

S7CT1(0 /@)" Functions of the 2ureau" O The general duties& powers and ?urisdiction of the bureaushall include:

a" The assessent and collection of the lawful revenues fro iported articles and all other dues& fee s&charges& fines and penalties accruing under the tariff and custos laws"

b" The prevention and suppression of suggling and other frauds upon the custos"

c" The supervision and control over the entrance and clearance of vessels and aircraft engaged inforeign coerce"d" The general supervision& control and regulation of vessels engaged in the carrying of passengers and

freight or in towage in coastwise trade and in the bays and rivers of the $hilippines"e" The prohibition and suppression of unnecessary noises& such as e!plosion of gasoline engines& the

e!cessive blowing of whistles or sirens& and other needless and disturbing sounds ade by water craftin the ports of the $hilippines or in parts of rivers included in such ports"f" The e!clusion& if the conditions of traffic should at an y tie so re#uire& of vessels of ore than one

hundred and fifty tons fro entering& berthing or ooring in the $asig iver"g" The and easureent& registration& docuenting and licensing of vessels built or owned in the

$hilippines& the recording of sales& transfers and encubrances of such vessels& and the perforance ofall the duties pertaining to arine registry"h" The inspection of $hilippine vessels& and supervision over the safety and sanitation of such vessels"

i" The enforceent of the lawful #uarantine regulations for vessels entering $hilippine ports"?" The enforceent of the tariff and custos laws and all other laws& rules and regulations relating to

the tariff and custos adinistration">" The licensing of arine officers who have #ualified in the e!aination re#uired by law to be carriedon $hilippine vessels& the deterination of the #ualifications of pilots& the regulation of this service&

and the !ing of the fees which they ay charge"l" The supervision and control over the handling of foreign ails arriving in the $hilippines& for the

purpose of the collection of the lawful duty on dutiable articles thus iported and the prevention of

suggling through the ediu of such ails"

1!3 $ 4y Coque v Sio"a

!3 (hil !