BALATBAT v. CA ERECTORS, INC. v.

NLRC
(Pio Balatbat v. CA and Domingo Pasion)
Sept 20, 1979 – Petitioner Erectors, Inc. and private respondent Florencio
- Petitioner Pio Balatbat – agri lessee of a 18,490 sq. m. of land in Sta. Ana, Burgos entered into an employment contract, Burgos to be a service contract
Pampanga driver in Saudi Arabia
- Land owned by Daniel Garcia Content of Contract:
- Daniel Garcia later sold it to respondent Domingo Pasion  period: 12 mos
- June 15, 1970 – Respondent Pasion filed with CAR (Court of Agrarian  salary: USD 165 per month
Relations/Agrarian Court) 5th Regional Dist. Branch 2 in San Fernando  allowance: USD 165 per month
Pampanga  a complaint to eject petitioner Balatbat  bonus upon renewal or extension of contract after 12 mos w/o
- GROUNDS for ejectment: availing vacation leave or home leave: USD1,000
1. Respondent already notified the petitioner of his intention to - Contract submitted to and approved by the Ministry of Labor and
personally cultivate the land, pursuant to Sec 36(1) RA 3844: Employment
- the dispossession of the agri lessee on the ground of personal - Not implemented, Burgos was notified by the petitioner that the position of
cultivation by the agri lessor-owner can only take place when service driver no longer available
“authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory”
2. Petitioner refused to vacate the land despite 1 yr from the receipt of Dec 14, 1979 – executed another contract:
the respondent’s notice  position: helper/laborer
- Agrarian Court – favored the respondent  salary: USD105/mo
- Petitioner appealed to the CA  allowance: USD105/mo
- Pending appeal  RA 6389 passed by the Congress - (2nd) contract not submitted to and not approved by Ministry of Labor and
- Sec. 7 of RA 6389 amended Sec 36 (1) of RA 3844: personal cultivation no Employment
longer a ground to dispossess an agri lessee of his landholdings
- Dec. 16, 1992 – CA affirmed the decision of the Agrarian Court Dec 18, 1979 – Burgos left the country, worked at Buraidah Sports Complex
- Petitioner: no final judgment yet during the repeal, the respondent’s Project of the respondent in Saudi Arabia as helper/laborer.
ejectment case cannot pursue on the ground of the repealed Section 36 (1) - received monthly salary and allowance of USD210 (2 nd contract)
of RA 3844 - after 12 mos, renewed his contract, salary and allowance monthly increased
to USD 231
ISSUE: W/N the new law of Sec. 7 of RA 6389 be given retroactive effect and
be applied in the case Aug 24, 1981 – Burgos returned to Phils
- invoked his 1st contract
HELD: No. Sec. 7 RA 6389 should not be given a retroactive effect for there - demanded to petitioner to fulfill the agreement
was no express declaration or necessary implication in the law that it should - petitioner denied the claim
be given retroactive effect.
- the governing law upon filing of the case was Sec 36(1) RA 3844 March 31, 1982 – Burgos filed a complaint with Labor Arbiter (LA) against
- In every case of doubt, the doubt must be solved against retrospective petitionerunderpayment of wages and non-payment of OT pay and
effect. contractual bonus

Principle: All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective May 1, 1982 – while the case was in conciliation stage
operation unless the purpose and the intention of the legislature to give them EO 797 passed, created POEA with the vested power of “original and
a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving Filipino workers for overseas
language used. employment”
LA – proceeded to try the case and ruled in favor of the Burgos
Petitioner appealed to NLRC, questioning the jurisdiction of LA
NLRC dismissed the appeal, affirmed LA’s jurisdiction and decision
Petitioner – filed special civil action for certiorari
GROUNDS: EO 797 and Briad Agro-Devt Corp v. Dela Cerna (EO 797
applies retroactively to effect pending cases
ISSUE: w/n EO 797 creating POEA be given retroactive effect
HELD: No.
- Gen. Rule: jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in
force at the time of the commencement of the action
- prevailing law upon commencement of the case PD 1691: vesting the RO
of the Ministry of Labor and Employment and LAs w/ “exclusive and original
jurisdiction over all cases involving employer-employee relations…involving
Filipino workers for overseas employment”
- EO 797 not a curative statute, not intended to remedy any defect in the law
but merely created POEA, therefore should not affect jurisdiction over cases
filed prior to its effectivity
Principle: Laws should not be applied prospectively unless the legislative
intent to give them retroactive effect is expressly declared or is necessarily
implied from the language used.
ROTAIRO v. ALCANTARA
- a parcel of land located in San Andres, Cainta, Rizal formerly owned by
Victor Alcantara (Alcantara) and Alfredo C. Ignacio (Ignacio)
- 1968 - mortgaged the property to Pilipinas Bank and Trust Company
(Pilipinas Bank)
- 1970 – property was parceled out (divided) through their firm Ignacio and
Co.
- separately soled to different buyers
- Ambrosio Rotairo was one of the buyers, bought 200 sq m portion on
installment basis, built a house on the property
- 1979 – Deed of Absolute Sale upon completion of payment, issued by
Ignacio and Co.
At the same time:
- Alcantara and Ignacio defaulted in their loan obligation to Pilipinas Bank
- Pilipinas Bank foreclosed the mortgage of the entire property
- Alcantara and Ignacion did not redeem the property
- auction sale, Pilipinas Bank highest bidder, title consolidated under the
name of Pilipinas Bank
- June 6, 1975 – (while Rotario was paying in installment the property he
bought from Ignacio and Co.) Pilipinas Bank sold the property in a Deed of
Absolute Sale to Rovira, Alcantara’s daughter
1988 – Rovira filed a complaint for the recovery of possession of the land and
damages
RTC Antipolo, Rizal dismissed the case
Ground: Transaction between Ignacio & Co. and Rotairo covered by PD 957
(Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing
Penalties for Violations Thereof) took effect in 1976
CA – reversed the decision of RTC
Ground:
Sec. 18 PD 957 – protects innocent buyers. Rotairo not innocent buyer
because there is a prior registered mortgaged that the buyer purchased the
property with the knowledge of it
- PD 957 – not confer more rights to unregistered buyer like Rotairo as
against registered prior mortgagee like Pilipinas Bank and its buyer, Rovira
Petition before the SC – insisted on the applicability of PD 957 to protect the
transaction between Rotairo and Ignacio & Co.
Respondents – prior registration of the mortgage and the sale in her favor
against the petitioner’s unregistered transactions
ISSUE: W/n PD 957 should be given retroactive application
HELD: Yes. Sec. 21 of PD 957 clearly provided the intent of the legislature to
have it operate retrospectively, to contracts and transactions entered into
prior to its enactment.
Sec. 21 requires the owner or developer of the subdivision project to
complete compliance with its obligations within 2 yrs from 1976 including
notification of buyers of the existing mortgages and for the buyers to exercise
an option to pay directly to the mortgagee (the bank)
- Rotairo not notified
- Rovira a buyer in bad faith, full knowledge of her father’s disposition of the
property as "successor-in-interest of Wilfredo S.Ignacio [and Victor Alcantara]
was well aware of the condition of the property which she bought from the
Pilipinas Bank, because she lives near the land, and at the time she
purchased it she was aware of the existing houses or structures on the land.”
- Petition granted, CA decision set aside, RTC decision reinstated.
Principle: The specific terms of a law may provide for its retroactive effect
even to contracts and transactions entered into prior to its enactment
QUIROG v. AUGMENTADO

May 28, 2001 - Personnel Selection Board (PSB) of the HR Magt and Devt
office of Bohol issued a certification – Quirog one of the two candidates
qualified for the position of PGDH-OPA (Provincial Government Dept. Head
of the Office of the Bohol Provincial Agriculture
On the same day – Bohol Gov. Rene Relampagos permanently appointed
Liza Quirog as PGDH-OPA (Provincial Government Dept. Head of the Office
of the Bohol Provincial Agriculture
- appointment confirmed by Sangguniang Panlalawigan in a Resolution dated
June 1, 2001
- Quirog took the oath on the same day (June 1, 2001)
June 28, 2001 – Director of Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VII
(CSCROVII) invalidated the appointment of Quirog
Ground: part of the bulk appointments made by Gov. Relampagos after the
May 14, 2001 elections, violating Item 3 (d) of the CSC Resol dated June 4,
2001.
CSC Resol 010988: prohibits all appointments issued after elections except:
a. gone through screening of PSB
b. appointee qualified
c. need to fill up a vacancy immediately for purposes of public service
d. not part of mass appointments

ISSUE: W/N CSC resol (June 4, 2001) is applicable to Quirog’s appointment

HELD: No. The application of the resol is against the prospective application
of laws.
- No provision in the resol that it must be applied retrospectively (appointment
June 1, Resol June 4)
- should it be applicable, Quirog is still qualified having been certified by PSB
as one of the qualified candidates

Principle: (VESTED RIGHTS) Since the retroactive application of a law

usually divests rights that have already become vested, the rule in stat con is
that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation
unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a
retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the
language used.