Professional Documents
Culture Documents
201 SCRA 487: EDC Vs Leogardo. It Is True That PNOC Is A GOCC and That PNOC-EDC, Being A
201 SCRA 487: EDC Vs Leogardo. It Is True That PNOC Is A GOCC and That PNOC-EDC, Being A
312 SCRA 47
Baltazar Camporedondo was the administrator of the Surigao del Norte chapter of
the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC). In 1995, a PNRC auditor found out that
Baltazar had unremitted collections amounting to P109,000.00. Baltazar, unable
to restitute said missing amount, then filed for early retirement. He later filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against PNRC. He filed the case with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). He averred that he was forced to retire
because of the erroneous audit. The Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC, ruled
that it has no jurisdiction over the case because PNRC is a government owned and
controlled corporation (GOCC). Baltazar however argues that PNRC impliedly
became a private corporation when its charter was amended to give it authority
to secure loans, etc.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine National Red Cross is a private corporation.
HELD: No. The simple test is to find out whether or not a corporation is public or
private is to determine if it has its own charter for the exercise of a public function
or was it incorporated under the general corporation law. PNRC has its own
charter (R.A. 95). Its subsequent amendment did not convert it into a private
corporation. As a GOCC, it is subject to its own charter and its employees are
under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and are compulsory
members of the Government Service Insurance System.
#51
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in not upholding the Society's By-Laws, the
applicable laws, and the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Ruling:
Petitioner cannot seek relief from the general provisions of the New Civil Code on
Human Relations nor from the fundamental principles of the New Constitution on
preservation of human dignity. While these provisions present some basic
principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human
beings and the stability of social order, these are merely guides for human
conduct in the absence of specific legal provisions and definite contractual
stipulations. In the case at bar, the Code of By-Laws of the Society contains a
specific provision governing the term of office of petitioner. The same necessarily
limits her rights under the New Civil Code and the New Constitution upon
acceptance of the appointment.
Moreover, the act of the Board in declaring her position as vacant is not only in
accordance with the Code of By-Laws of the Society but also meets the exacting
standards of honesty and good faith. The meeting of May 29, 1974, at which
petitioner ,petitioner's position was declared vacant, was caged specifically to
take up the unfinished business of the Reorganizational Meeting of the Board of
April 30, 1974. Hence, and act cannot be said to impart a dishonest purpose or
some moral obliquity and conscious doing to wrong but rather emanates from the
desire of the Board to reorganize itself.
#74
Enrique Salafranca vs Philamlife (Pamplona) Village Homeowners
Association, Inc.
300 SCRA 469
In 1981, Enrique Salafranca was hired as an administrative officer by the
Philamlife Village Homeowners Associaiton, Inc. (PVHAI). Salafranca was tasked to
manage the villages day to day activities. His employment was originally for 6
months only but his contract was renewed multiple times until 1983. But even
after 1983, he was still allowed to continue work even without a renewed
contract. In 1987, PVHAI amended its by-laws. Among the amendment was a
provision that the administrative officer (Salafranca) shall have a tenure which is
co-terminus with the Board of Directors which appointed him. In 1992, the tenure
of said Board of Directors expired and so Salafranca was terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Salafranca was illegally dismissed.
HELD: Yes. At that time, Salafranca already enjoys security of tenure because he
is already a regular employee. It is true that PVHAI has the right to amend its by-
laws but such amendment must not impair existing contracts or rights. In this
case, the provision that Salafrancas position shall be co-terminus with the
appointing Board impairs his right to security of tenure which has already vested
even prior to the amendment of the by-laws in 1987.
#95
Facts: This case pertains to Section 40 (e) of the Public Service Act (PSA), as
amended on March 15, 1984, pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 325, which
authorized the NTC to collect from publictelecommunications companies
Supervision and Regulation Fees (SRF) of PhP 0.50 for every PhP 100 or a fraction
of the capital andstock subscribed or paid for of a stock corporation, partnership
or single proprietorship of the capital invested, or of the property and equipment,
whichever is higher.
PLDT wanted the July 28, 1999 Decision in G.R. No. 127937 clarified. It posited
that the SRF should be based on the par value in consonance with our holding in
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Public Service Commission, and
that the premiums on issued shares should not be included in the valuation of the
outstanding capital stock. Through the November 15, 1999 Resolution in G.R. No.
127937, we elucidated that the July 28, 1999 decision was not in conflict with the
ruling in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company since it never enunciated in
the said case that the phrase capital stock subscribed or paid must be
determined at par value. It is reiterated that the term capital stocksubscribed or
paid is the amount that the corporation receives, inclusive of the premiums, if
any, in consideration of the originalissuance of the shares.
Issue: Whether or not the appellate court erred in holding that theassessments of
the NTC were contrary to our Decision in G.R. No. 127937 entitled NTC v.
Honorable Court of Appeals
Held: No. The term capital and other terms used to describe thecapital
structure of a corporation are of universal acceptance and their usages have long
been established in jurisprudence. The capital subscribed is the total amount of
the capital that subscribers or shareholders have agreed to take and pay for,
which need not necessarily by, and can be more than, the par value of the shares.
In fine, it is the amount that the corporation receives, inclusive of the premiums if
any, in consideration of the original issuance of the shares. In the case
of stock dividends, it is the amount that the corporation transfers from its surplus
profit account to its capital account. It is the same amount that can be loosely
termed as the trust fund of the corporation. The Trust Fund doctrine considers
this subscribed capital as a trust fund for the payment of the debts of the
corporation, to which the creditors may look for satisfaction. Until the liquidation
of the corporation, no part of the subscribed capital may be returned or released
to the stockholder without violating this principle. Thus, dividends must never
impair the subscribed capital; subscription commitments cannot be condoned or
remitted; nor can the corporation buy its own shares using the subscribed capital
as the considerations therefore.