EN BANC [G.R. Nos. 84132-33 : December 10, 1990.

] 192 SCRA 257 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND NEW AGRIX, INC., Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF and GODOFREDO QUILING, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Calamba, Laguna, Respondents.

After the submission by the parties of their respective pleadings, the trial court rendered the impugned decision. Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero annulled not only the challenged provision, viz., Sec. 4 (1), but the entire Pres. Decree No. 1717 on the grounds that: (1) the presidential exercise of legislative power was a violation of the principle of separation of powers; (2) the law impaired the obligation of contracts; and (3) the decree violated the equal protection clause. The motion for reconsideration of this decision having been denied, the present petition was filed.: rd The petition was originally assigned to the Third Division of this Court but because of the constitutional questions involved it was transferred to the Court en banc. On August 30, 1988, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer for a temporary restraining order and instructed the respondents to cease and desist from conducting a public auction sale of the lands in question. After the Solicitor General and the private respondent had filed their comments and the petitioners their reply, the Court gave due course to the petition and ordered the parties to file simultaneous memoranda. Upon compliance by the parties, the case was deemed submitted. The petitioners contend that the private respondent is now estopped from contesting the validity of the decree. In support of this contention, it cites the recent case of Mendoza v. Agrix Marketing, Inc., 1 where the constitutionality of Pres. Decree No. 1717 was also raised but not resolved. The Court, after noting that the petitioners had already filed their claims with the AGRIX Claims Committee created by the decree, had simply dismissed the petition on the ground of estoppel. The petitioners stress that in the case at bar the private respondent also invoked the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 1717 by filing a claim with the AGRIX Claims Committee. Failing to get results, it sought to foreclose the real estate mortgage executed by AGRIX in its favor, which had been extinguished by the decree. It was only when the petitioners challenged the foreclosure on the basis of Sec. 4 (1) of the decree, that the private respondent attacked the validity of the provision. At that stage, however, consistent with Mendoza, the private respondent was already estopped from questioning the constitutionality of the decree. The Court does not agree that the principle of estoppel is applicable. It is not denied that the private respondent did file a claim with the AGRIX Claims Committee pursuant to this decree. It must be noted, however, that this was done in 1980, when President Marcos was the absolute ruler of this country and his decrees were the absolute law. Any judicial challenge to them would have been futile, not to say foolhardy. The private respondent, no less than the rest of the nation, was aware of that reality and knew it had no choice under the circumstances but to conform.: nad It is true that there were a few venturesome souls who dared to question the dictator's decisions before the courts of justice then. The record will show, however, that not a single act or issuance of President Marcos was

DECISION

CRUZ, J.: This case involves the constitutionality of a presidential decree which, like all other issuances of President Marcos during his regime, was at that time regarded as sacrosanct. It is only now, in a freer atmosphere, that his acts are being tested by the touchstone of the fundamental law that even then was supposed to limit presidential action.: rd The particular enactment in question is Pres. Decree No. 1717, which ordered the rehabilitation of the Agrix Group of Companies to be administered mainly by the National Development Company. The law outlined the procedure for filing claims against the Agrix companies and created a Claims Committee to process these claims. Especially relevant to this case, and noted at the outset, is Sec. 4(1) thereof providing that "all mortgages and other liens presently attaching to any of the assets of the dissolved corporations are hereby extinguished." Earlier, the Agrix Marketing, Inc. (AGRIX) had executed in favor of private respondent Philippine Veterans Bank a real estate mortgage dated July 7, 1978, over three (3) parcels of land situated in Los Baos, Laguna. During the existence of the mortgage, AGRIX went bankrupt. It was for the expressed purpose of salvaging this and the other Agrix companies that the aforementioned decree was issued by President Marcos. Pursuant thereto, the private respondent filed a claim with the AGRIX Claims Committee for the payment of its loan credit. In the meantime, the New Agrix, Inc. and the National Development Company, petitioners herein, invoking Sec. 4 (1) of the decree, filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, for the cancellation of the mortgage lien in favor of the private respondent. For its part, the private respondent took steps to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage, prompting the petitioners to file a second case with the same court to stop the foreclosure. The two cases were consolidated.

ever declared unconstitutional, not even by the highest court, as long as he was in power. To rule now that the private respondent is estopped for having abided with the decree instead of boldly assailing it is to close our eyes to a cynical fact of life during that repressive time. This case must be distinguished from Mendoza, where the petitioners, after filing their claims with the AGRIX Claims Committee, received in settlement thereof shares of stock valued at P40,000.00 without protest or reservation. The herein private respondent has not been paid a single centavo on its claim, which was kept pending for more than seven years for alleged lack of supporting papers. Significantly, the validity of that claim was not questioned by the petitioner when it sought to restrain the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage by the private respondent. The petitioner limited itself to the argument that the private respondent was estopped from questioning the decree because of its earlier compliance with its provisions. Independently of these observations, there is the consideration that an affront to the Constitution cannot be allowed to continue existing simply because of procedural inhibitions that exalt form over substance. The Court is especially disturbed by Section 4(1) of the decree, quoted above, extinguishing all mortgages and other liens attaching to the assets of AGRIX. It also notes, with equal concern, the restriction in Subsection (ii) thereof that all "unsecured obligations shall not bear interest" and in Subsection (iii) that "all accrued interests, penalties or charges as of date hereof pertaining to the obligations, whether secured or unsecured, shall not be recognized." These provisions must be read with the Bill of Rights, where it is clearly provided in Section 1 that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due course of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law" and in Section 10 that "no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." In defending the decree, the petitioners argue that property rights, like all rights, are subject to regulation under the police power for the promotion of the common welfare. The contention is that this inherent power of the state may be exercised at any time for this purpose so long as the taking of the property right, even if based on contract, is done with due process of law. This argument is an over-simplification of the problem before us. The police power is not a panacea for all constitutional maladies. Neither does its mere invocation conjure an instant and automatic justification for every act of the government depriving a person of his life, liberty or property. A legislative act based on the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. In more familiar words, a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,

should justify the interference of the state; and b) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 2 Applying these criteria to the case at bar, the Court finds first of all that the interests of the public are not sufficiently involved to warrant the interference of the government with the private contracts of AGRIX. The decree speaks vaguely of the "public, particularly the small investors," who would be prejudiced if the corporation were not to be assisted. However, the record does not state how many there are of such investors, and who they are, and why they are being preferred to the private respondent and other creditors of AGRIX with vested property rights.:-cralaw The public interest supposedly involved is not identified or explained. It has not been shown that by the creation of the New Agrix, Inc. and the extinction of the property rights of the creditors of AGRIX, the interests of the public as a whole, as distinguished from those of a particular class, would be promoted or protected. The indispensable link to the welfare of the greater number has not been established. On the contrary, it would appear that the decree was issued only to favor a special group of investors who, for reasons not given, have been preferred to the legitimate creditors of AGRIX. Assuming there is a valid public interest involved, the Court still finds that the means employed to rehabilitate AGRIX fall far short of the requirement that they shall not be unduly oppressive. The oppressiveness is patent on the face of the decree. The right to property in all mortgages, liens, interests, penalties and charges owing to the creditors of AGRIX is arbitrarily destroyed. No consideration is paid for the extinction of the mortgage rights. The accrued interests and other charges are simply rejected by the decree. The right to property is dissolved by legislative fiat without regard to the private interest violated and, worse, in favor of another private interest. A mortgage lien is a property right derived from contract and so comes under the protection of the Bill of Rights. So do interests on loans, as well as penalties and charges, which are also vested rights once they accrue. Private property cannot simply be taken by law from one person and given to another without compensation and any known public purpose. This is plain arbitrariness and is not permitted under the Constitution. And not only is there arbitrary taking, there is discrimination as well. In extinguishing the mortgage and other liens, the decree lumps the secured creditors with the unsecured creditors and places them on the same level in the prosecution of their respective claims. In this respect, all of them are considered unsecured creditors. The only concession given to the secured creditors is that their loans are allowed to earn interest from the date of the decree, but that still does not justify the cancellation of the interests earned before that date. Such interests, whether due to the secured or the unsecured creditors, are all extinguished by the decree. Even assuming

such cancellation to be valid, we still cannot see why all kinds of creditors, regardless of security, are treated alike. Under the equal protection clause, all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike, both in the privileges conferred and the obligations imposed. Conversely, all persons or things differently situated should be treated differently. In the case at bar, persons differently situated are similarly treated, in disregard of the principle that there should be equality only among equals.- nad One may also well wonder why AGRIX was singled out for government help, among other corporations where the stockholders or investors were also swindled. It is not clear why other companies entitled to similar concern were not similarly treated. And surely, the stockholders of the private respondent, whose mortgage lien had been cancelled and legitimate claims to accrued interests rejected, were no less deserving of protection, which they did not get. The decree operated, to use the words of a celebrated case, 3 "with an evil eye and an uneven hand." On top of all this, New Agrix, Inc. was created by special decree notwithstanding the provision of Article XIV, Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution, then in force, that: SEC. 4. The Batasang Pambansa shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations, unless such corporations are owned or controlled by the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof. 4 The new corporation is neither owned nor controlled by the government. The National Development Corporation was merely required to extend a loan of not more than P10,000,000.00 to New Agrix, Inc. Pending payment thereof, NDC would undertake the management of the corporation, but with the obligation of making periodic reports to the Agrix board of directors. After payment of the loan, the said board can then appoint its own management. The stocks of the new corporation are to be issued to the old investors and stockholders of AGRIX upon proof of their claims against the abolished corporation. They shall then be the owners of the new corporation. New Agrix, Inc. is entirely private and so should have been organized under the Corporation Law in accordance with the abovecited constitutional provision. The Court also feels that the decree impairs the obligation of the contract between AGRIX and the private respondent without justification. While it is true that the police power is superior to the impairment clause, the principle will apply only where the contract is so related to the public welfare that it will be considered congenitally susceptible to change by the legislature in the interest of the greater number. 5 Most present-day contracts are of that nature. But as already observed, the contracts of loan and mortgage executed by AGRIX are purely private transactions and have not been shown to be affected with public interest. There was therefore no

warrant to amend their provisions and deprive the private respondent of its vested property rights. It is worth noting that only recently in the case of the Development Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, 6 we sustained the preference in payment of a mortgage creditor as against the argument that the claims of laborers should take precedence over all other claims, including those of the government. In arriving at this ruling, the Court recognized the mortgage lien as a property right protected by the due process and contract clauses notwithstanding the argument that the amendment in Section 110 of the Labor Code was a proper exercise of the police power.: nad The Court reaffirms and applies that ruling in the case at bar. Our finding, in sum, is that Pres. Decree No. 1717 is an invalid exercise of the police power, not being in conformity with the traditional requirements of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The extinction of the mortgage and other liens and of the interest and other charges pertaining to the legitimate creditors of AGRIX constitutes taking without due process of law, and this is compounded by the reduction of the secured creditors to the category of unsecured creditors in violation of the equal protection clause. Moreover, the new corporation, being neither owned nor controlled by the Government, should have been created only by general and not special law. And insofar as the decree also interferes with purely private agreements without any demonstrated connection with the public interest, there is likewise an impairment of the obligation of the contract. With the above pronouncements, we feel there is no more need to rule on the authority of President Marcos to promulgate Pres. Decree No. 1717 under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution. Even if he had such authority, the decree must fall just the same because of its violation of the Bill of Rights. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Pres. Decree No. 1717 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The temporary restraining order dated August 30, 1988, is LIFTED. Costs against the petitioners.- nad SO ORDERED. Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Gancayco Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. Melencio-Herrera, J., In the result. In Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980), a portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 was declared null and void for being unconstitutional. Feliciano, J., is on leave.

G.R. No. 147402

January 14, 2004

ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO, in his capacity as General Manager of the Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD), Tacloban City, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Chairman CELSO D. GANGAN, Commissioners RAUL C. FLORES and EMMANUEL M. DALMAN, and Regional Director of COA Region VIII, respondents.

On 13 March 2001, petitioner filed this instant petition. Attached to the petition were resolutions of the Visayas Association of Water Districts (VAWD) and the Philippine Association of Water Districts (PAWD) supporting the petition. The Ruling of the Commission on Audit The COA ruled that this Court has already settled COAs audit jurisdiction over local water districts in Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission and Commission on Audit,3 as follows: The above-quoted provision [referring to Section 3(b) PD 198] definitely sets to naught petitioners contention that they are private corporations. It is clear therefrom that the power to appoint the members who will comprise the members of the Board of Directors belong to the local executives of the local subdivision unit where such districts are located. In contrast, the members of the Board of Directors or the trustees of a private corporation are elected from among members or stockholders thereof. It would not be amiss at this point to emphasize that a private corporation is created for the private purpose, benefit, aim and end of its members or stockholders. Necessarily, said members or stockholders should be given a free hand to choose who will compose the governing body of their corporation. But this is not the case here and this clearly indicates that petitioners are not private corporations. The COA also denied petitioners request for COA to stop charging auditing fees as well as petitioners request for COA to refund all auditing fees already paid. The Issues

DECISION

CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for certiorari1 to annul the Commission on Audits ("COA") Resolution dated 3 January 2000 and the Decision dated 30 January 2001 denying the Motion for Reconsideration. The COA denied petitioner Ranulfo C. Felicianos request for COA to cease all audit services, and to stop charging auditing fees, to Leyte Metropolitan Water District ("LMWD"). The COA also denied petitioners request for COA to refund all auditing fees previously paid by LMWD. Antecedent Facts A Special Audit Team from COA Regional Office No. VIII audited the accounts of LMWD. Subsequently, LMWD received a letter from COA dated 19 July 1999 requesting payment of auditing fees. As General Manager of LMWD, petitioner sent a reply dated 12 October 1999 informing COAs Regional Director that the water district could not pay the auditing fees. Petitioner cited as basis for his action Sections 6 and 20 of Presidential Decree 198 ("PD 198")2, as well as Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6758 ("RA 6758"). The Regional Director referred petitioners reply to the COA Chairman on 18 October 1999. On 19 October 1999, petitioner wrote COA through the Regional Director asking for refund of all auditing fees LMWD previously paid to COA. On 16 March 2000, petitioner received COA Chairman Celso D. Gangans Resolution dated 3 January 2000 denying his requests. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on 31 March 2000, which COA denied on 30 January 2001.

Petitioner contends that COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by auditing LMWD and requiring it to pay auditing fees. Petitioner raises the following issues for resolution: 1. Whether a Local Water District ("LWD") created under PD 198, as amended, is a government-owned or controlled corporation subject to the audit jurisdiction of COA; 2. Whether Section 20 of PD 198, as amended, prohibits COAs certified public accountants from auditing local water districts; and 3. Whether Section 18 of RA 6758 prohibits the COA from charging governmentowned and controlled corporations auditing fees. The Ruling of the Court The petition lacks merit.

The Constitution and existing laws4 mandate COA to audit all government agencies, including government-owned and controlled corporations ("GOCCs") with original charters. An LWD is a GOCC with an original charter. Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution provides for COAs audit jurisdiction, as follows: SECTION 2. (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 and 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 governmentowned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such nongovernmental 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. (Emphasis supplied) The COAs audit jurisdiction extends not only to government "agencies or instrumentalities," but also to "government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters" as well as "other government-owned or controlled corporations" without original charters. Whether LWDs are Private or Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations with Original Charters Petitioner seeks to revive a well-settled issue. Petitioner asks for a re-examination of a doctrine backed by a long line of cases culminating in Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission5 and just recently reiterated in De Jesus v. Commission on Audit.6 Petitioner maintains that LWDs are not government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters. Petitioner even argues that LWDs are private corporations. Petitioner asks the Court to consider certain interpretations of the applicable laws, which would give a "new perspective to the issue of the true character of water districts."7 Petitioner theorizes that what PD 198 created was the Local Waters Utilities Administration ("LWUA") and not the LWDs. Petitioner claims that LWDs are created "pursuant to" and not created directly by PD 198. Thus, petitioner concludes that PD 198 is not an "original charter" that would place LWDs within the audit jurisdiction of COA as defined in Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution. Petitioner elaborates that PD 198 does not create LWDs since it does not expressly direct the creation of such entities, but only provides for their formation on an optional or voluntary basis.8 Petitioner adds that the operative act that creates an LWD is the approval of the Sanggunian Resolution as specified in PD 198.

Petitioners contention deserves scant consideration. We begin by explaining the general framework under the fundamental law. The Constitution recognizes two classes of corporations. The first refers to private corporations created under a general law. The second refers to government-owned or controlled corporations created by special charters. Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution provides: Sec. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. The Constitution emphatically prohibits the creation of private corporations except by a general law applicable to all citizens.9 The purpose of this constitutional provision is to ban private corporations created by special charters, which historically gave certain individuals, families or groups special privileges denied to other citizens.10 In short, Congress cannot enact a law creating a private corporation with a special charter. Such legislation would be unconstitutional. Private corporations may exist only under a general law. If the corporation is private, it must necessarily exist under a general law. Stated differently, only corporations created under a general law can qualify as private corporations. Under existing laws, that general law is the Corporation Code,11 except that the Cooperative Code governs the incorporation of cooperatives.12 The Constitution authorizes Congress to create government-owned or controlled corporations through special charters. Since private corporations cannot have special charters, it follows that Congress can create corporations with special charters only if such corporations are government-owned or controlled. Obviously, LWDs are not private corporations because they are not created under the Corporation Code. LWDs are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Section 14 of the Corporation Code states that "[A]ll corporations organized under this code shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission articles of incorporation x x x." LWDs have no articles of incorporation, no incorporators and no stockholders or members. There are no stockholders or members to elect the board directors of LWDs as in the case of all corporations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The local mayor or the provincial governor appoints the directors of LWDs for a fixed term of office. This Court has ruled that LWDs are not created under the Corporation Code, thus: From the foregoing pronouncement, it is clear that what has been excluded from the coverage of the CSC are those corporations created pursuant to the Corporation Code. Significantly, petitioners are not created under the said code, but on the contrary, they were created pursuant to a special law and are governed primarily by its provision.13 (Emphasis supplied)

LWDs exist by virtue of PD 198, which constitutes their special charter. Since under the Constitution only government-owned or controlled corporations may have special charters, LWDs can validly exist only if they are government-owned or controlled. To claim that LWDs are private corporations with a special charter is to admit that their existence is constitutionally infirm. Unlike private corporations, which derive their legal existence and power from the Corporation Code, LWDs derive their legal existence and power from PD 198. Sections 6 and 25 of PD 19814 provide: Section 6. Formation of District. This Act is the source of authorization and power to form and maintain a district. For purposes of this Act, a district shall be considered as a quasi-public corporation performing public service and supplying public wants. As such, a district shall exercise the powers, rights and privileges given to private corporations under existing laws, in addition to the powers granted in, and subject to such restrictions imposed, under this Act . (a) The name of the local water district, which shall include the name of the city, municipality, or province, or region thereof, served by said system, followed by the words "Water District". (b) A description of the boundary of the district. In the case of a city or municipality, such boundary may include all lands within the city or municipality. A district may include one or more municipalities, cities or provinces, or portions thereof. (c) A statement completely transferring any and all waterworks and/or sewerage facilities managed, operated by or under the control of such city, municipality or province to such district upon the filing of resolution forming the district. (d) A statement identifying the purpose for which the district is formed, which shall include those purposes outlined in Section 5 above. (e) The names of the initial directors of the district with the date of expiration of term of office for each. (f) A statement that the district may only be dissolved on the grounds and under the conditions set forth in Section 44 of this Title. (g) A statement acknowledging the powers, rights and obligations as set forth in Section 36 of this Title. Nothing in the resolution of formation shall state or infer that the local legislative body has the power to dissolve, alter or affect the district beyond that specifically provided for in this Act.

If two or more cities, municipalities or provinces, or any combination thereof, desire to form a single district, a similar resolution shall be adopted in each city, municipality and province. xxx Sec. 25. Authorization. The district may exercise all the powers which are expressly granted by this Title or which are necessarily implied from or incidental to the powers and purposes herein stated. For the purpose of carrying out the objectives of this Act, a district is hereby granted the power of eminent domain, the exercise thereof shall, however, be subject to review by the Administration. (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, LWDs exist as corporations only by virtue of PD 198, which expressly confers on LWDs corporate powers. Section 6 of PD 198 provides that LWDs "shall exercise the powers, rights and privileges given to private corporations under existing laws." Without PD 198, LWDs would have no corporate powers. Thus, PD 198 constitutes the special enabling charter of LWDs. The ineluctable conclusion is that LWDs are government-owned and controlled corporations with a special charter. The phrase "government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters" means GOCCs created under special laws and not under the general incorporation law. There is no difference between the term "original charters" and "special charters." The Court clarified this in National Service Corporation v. NLRC15 by citing the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, as follows: THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). The session is resumed. Commissioner Romulo is recognized. MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am amending my original proposed amendment to now read as follows: "including government-owned or controlled corporations WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS." The purpose of this amendment is to indicate that government corporations such as the GSIS and SSS, which have original charters, fall within the ambit of the civil service. However, corporations which are subsidiaries of these chartered agencies such as the Philippine Airlines, Manila Hotel and Hyatt are excluded from the coverage of the civil service. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trenas). What does the Committee say? MR. FOZ. Just one question, Mr. Presiding Officer. By the term "original charters," what exactly do we mean? MR. ROMULO. We mean that they were created by law, by an act of Congress, or by special law.

MR. FOZ. And not under the general corporation law. MR. ROMULO. That is correct. Mr. Presiding Officer. MR. FOZ. With that understanding and clarification, the Committee accepts the amendment. MR. NATIVIDAD. Mr. Presiding Officer, so those created by the general corporation law are out. MR. ROMULO. That is correct. (Emphasis supplied) Again, in Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission,16 the Court reiterated the meaning of the phrase "government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters" in this wise: By "government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter," We mean government owned or controlled corporation created by a special law and not under the Corporation Code of the Philippines. Thus, in the case of Lumanta v. NLRC (G.R. No. 82819, February 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 79, 82), We held: "The Court, in National Service Corporation (NASECO) v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 69870, promulgated on 29 November 1988, quoting extensively from the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission in respect of the intent and meaning of the new phrase with original charter, in effect held that government-owned and controlled corporations with original charter refer to corporations chartered by special law as distinguished from corporations organized under our general incorporation statute the Corporation Code. In NASECO, the company involved had been organized under the general incorporation statute and was a subsidiary of the National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC) which in turn was a subsidiary of the Philippine National Bank, a bank chartered by a special statute. Thus, governmentowned or controlled corporations like NASECO are effectively, excluded from the scope of the Civil Service." (Emphasis supplied) Petitioners contention that the Sangguniang Bayan resolution creates the LWDs assumes that the Sangguniang Bayan has the power to create corporations. This is a patently baseless assumption. The Local Government Code17 does not vest in the Sangguniang Bayan the power to create corporations.18 What the Local Government Code empowers the Sangguniang Bayan to do is to provide for the establishment of a waterworks system "subject to existing laws." Thus, Section 447(5)(vii) of the Local Government Code provides:

SECTION 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the municipality as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall: xxx (vii) Subject to existing laws, provide for the establishment, operation, maintenance, and repair of an efficient waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants; regulate the construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protect the purity and quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose, extend the coverage of appropriate ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water service; and regulate the consumption, use or wastage of water; x x x. (Emphasis supplied) The Sangguniang Bayan may establish a waterworks system only in accordance with the provisions of PD 198. The Sangguniang Bayan has no power to create a corporate entity that will operate its waterworks system. However, the Sangguniang Bayan may avail of existing enabling laws, like PD 198, to form and incorporate a water district. Besides, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Sangguniang Bayan has the power to create corporations, the LWDs would remain government-owned or controlled corporations subject to COAs audit jurisdiction. The resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan would constitute an LWDs special charter, making the LWD a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter. In any event, the Court has already ruled in Baguio Water District v. Trajano19 that the Sangguniang Bayan resolution is not the special charter of LWDs, thus: While it is true that a resolution of a local sanggunian is still necessary for the final creation of a district, this Court is of the opinion that said resolution cannot be considered as its charter, the same being intended only to implement the provisions of said decree. Petitioner further contends that a law must create directly and explicitly a GOCC in order that it may have an original charter. In short, petitioner argues that one special law cannot serve as enabling law for several GOCCs but only for one GOCC. Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution mandates that "Congress shall not, except by general law,"20 provide for the creation of private corporations. Thus, the Constitution prohibits one special law to create one private corporation, requiring instead a "general law" to create private corporations. In contrast, the same Section 16 states that "Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters." Thus, the Constitution permits Congress to create a GOCC

with a special charter. There is, however, no prohibition on Congress to create several GOCCs of the same class under one special enabling charter. The rationale behind the prohibition on private corporations having special charters does not apply to GOCCs. There is no danger of creating special privileges to certain individuals, families or groups if there is one special law creating each GOCC. Certainly, such danger will not exist whether one special law creates one GOCC, or one special enabling law creates several GOCCs. Thus, Congress may create GOCCs either by special charters specific to each GOCC, or by one special enabling charter applicable to a class of GOCCs, like PD 198 which applies only to LWDs. Petitioner also contends that LWDs are private corporations because Section 6 of PD 198 21 declares that LWDs "shall be considered quasi-public" in nature. Petitioners rationale is that only private corporations may be deemed "quasi-public" and not public corporations. Put differently, petitioner rationalizes that a public corporation cannot be deemed "quasi-public" because such corporation is already public. Petitioner concludes that the term "quasi-public" can only apply to private corporations. Petitioners argument is inconsequential. Petitioner forgets that the constitutional criterion on the exercise of COAs audit jurisdiction depends on the governments ownership or control of a corporation. The nature of the corporation, whether it is private, quasi-public, or public is immaterial. The Constitution vests in the COA audit jurisdiction over "government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters," as well as "government-owned or controlled corporations" without original charters. GOCCs with original charters are subject to COA pre-audit, while GOCCs without original charters are subject to COA post-audit. GOCCs without original charters refer to corporations created under the Corporation Code but are owned or controlled by the government. The nature or purpose of the corporation is not material in determining COAs audit jurisdiction. Neither is the manner of creation of a corporation , whether under a general or special law. The determining factor of COAs audit jurisdiction is government ownership or control of the corporation. In Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union-NUBE v. Philippine Veterans Bank,22 the Court even ruled that the criterion of ownership and control is more important than the issue of original charter, thus: This point is important because the Constitution provides in its Article IX-B, Section 2(1) that "the Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters." As the Bank is not owned or controlled by the Government although it does have an original charter in the form of R.A. No. 3518,23 it clearly does not fall under the Civil Service and should be regarded as an ordinary commercial corporation. Section 28 of the said law so provides. The consequence is that the relations of the Bank with its employees should be governed by the labor laws, under which in fact they have already been paid some of their claims. (Emphasis supplied)

Certainly, the government owns and controls LWDs. The government organizes LWDs in accordance with a specific law, PD 198. There is no private party involved as co-owner in the creation of an LWD. Just prior to the creation of LWDs, the national or local government owns and controls all their assets. The government controls LWDs because under PD 198 the municipal or city mayor, or the provincial governor, appoints all the board directors of an LWD for a fixed term of six years.24 The board directors of LWDs are not co-owners of the LWDs. LWDs have no private stockholders or members. The board directors and other personnel of LWDs are government employees subject to civil service laws25 and anti-graft laws.26 While Section 8 of PD 198 states that "[N]o public official shall serve as director" of an LWD, it only means that the appointees to the board of directors of LWDs shall come from the private sector. Once such private sector representatives assume office as directors, they become public officials governed by the civil service law and anti-graft laws. Otherwise, Section 8 of PD 198 would contravene Section 2(1), Article IX-B of the Constitution declaring that the civil service includes "government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters." If LWDs are neither GOCCs with original charters nor GOCCs without original charters, then they would fall under the term "agencies or instrumentalities" of the government and thus still subject to COAs audit jurisdiction. However, the stark and undeniable fact is that the government owns LWDs. Section 4527 of PD 198 recognizes government ownership of LWDs when Section 45 states that the board of directors may dissolve an LWD only on the condition that "another public entity has acquired the assets of the district and has assumed all obligations and liabilities attached thereto." The implication is clear that an LWD is a public and not a private entity. Petitioner does not allege that some entity other than the government owns or controls LWDs. Instead, petitioner advances the theory that the "Water Districts owner is the District itself." 28 Assuming for the sake of argument that an LWD is "self-owned,"29 as petitioner describes an LWD, the government in any event controls all LWDs. First, government officials appoint all LWD directors to a fixed term of office. Second, any per diem of LWD directors in excess of P50 is subject to the approval of the Local Water Utilities Administration, and directors can receive no other compensation for their services to the LWD.30 Third, the Local Water Utilities Administration can require LWDs to merge or consolidate their facilities or operations.31 This element of government control subjects LWDs to COAs audit jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that upon the enactment of PD 198, LWDs became private entities through the transfer of ownership of water facilities from local government units to their respective water districts as mandated by PD 198. Petitioner is grasping at straws. Privatization involves the transfer of government assets to a private entity. Petitioner concedes that the owner of the assets transferred under Section 6 (c) of PD 198 is no other than the LWD itself. 32 The transfer of assets mandated by PD 198 is a transfer of the water systems facilities "managed, operated by or under the control of such city, municipality or province to such (water) district." 33 In short, the transfer is from one government entity to another government entity. PD 198 is bereft of any indication that the transfer is to privatize the operation and control of water systems.

Finally, petitioner claims that even on the assumption that the government owns and controls LWDs, Section 20 of PD 198 prevents COA from auditing LWDs. 34 Section 20 of PD 198 provides: Sec. 20. System of Business Administration. The Board shall, as soon as practicable, prescribe and define by resolution a system of business administration and accounting for the district, which shall be patterned upon and conform to the standards established by the Administration. Auditing shall be performed by a certified public accountant not in the government service. The Administration may, however, conduct annual audits of the fiscal operations of the district to be performed by an auditor retained by the Administration. Expenses incurred in connection therewith shall be borne equally by the water district concerned and the Administration.35 (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner argues that PD 198 expressly prohibits COA auditors, or any government auditor for that matter, from auditing LWDs. Petitioner asserts that this is the import of the second sentence of Section 20 of PD 198 when it states that "[A]uditing shall be performed by a certified public accountant not in the government service."36 PD 198 cannot prevail over the Constitution. No amount of clever legislation can exclude GOCCs like LWDs from COAs audit jurisdiction. Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution outlaws any scheme or devise to escape COAs audit jurisdiction, thus: Sec. 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. (Emphasis supplied) The framers of the Constitution added Section 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution precisely to annul provisions of Presidential Decrees, like that of Section 20 of PD 198, that exempt GOCCs from COA audit. The following exchange in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission elucidates this intent of the framers: MR. OPLE: I propose to add a new section on line 9, page 2 of the amended committee report which reads: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED EXEMPTING ANY ENTITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY IN ANY GUISE WHATEVER, OR ANY INVESTMENTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. May I explain my reasons on record. We know that a number of entities of the government took advantage of the absence of a legislature in the past to obtain presidential decrees exempting themselves from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit, one notable example of which is the Philippine National Oil Company which is really an empty shell. It is a holding corporation by itself, and strictly on its own account. Its funds were not very impressive in quantity but underneath that shell there were billions of

pesos in a multiplicity of companies. The PNOC the empty shell under a presidential decree was covered by the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit, but the billions of pesos invested in different corporations underneath it were exempted from the coverage of the Commission on Audit. Another example is the United Coconut Planters Bank. The Commission on Audit has determined that the coconut levy is a form of taxation; and that, therefore, these funds attributed to the shares of 1,400,000 coconut farmers are, in effect, public funds. And that was, I think, the basis of the PCGG in undertaking that last major sequestration of up to 94 percent of all the shares in the United Coconut Planters Bank. The charter of the UCPB, through a presidential decree, exempted it from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit, it being a private organization. So these are the fetuses of future abuse that we are slaying right here with this additional section. May I repeat the amendment, Madam President: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED EXEMPTING ANY ENTITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY IN ANY GUISE WHATEVER, OR ANY INVESTMENTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. THE PRESIDENT: May we know the position of the Committee on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople? MR. JAMIR: If the honorable Commissioner will change the number of the section to 4, we will accept the amendment. MR. OPLE: Gladly, Madam President. Thank you. MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, point of inquiry on the new amendment. THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized. MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you. May I just ask a few questions of Commissioner Ople. Is that not included in Section 2 (1) where it states: "(c) government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries"? So that if these government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries are subjected to the audit of the COA, any law exempting certain government corporations or subsidiaries will be already unconstitutional. So I believe, Madam President, that the proposed amendment is unnecessary.

MR. MONSOD: Madam President, since this has been accepted, we would like to reply to the point raised by Commissioner de Castro. THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod will please proceed. MR. MONSOD: I think the Commissioner is trying to avoid the situation that happened in the past, because the same provision was in the 1973 Constitution and yet somehow a law or a decree was passed where certain institutions were exempted from audit. We are just reaffirming, emphasizing, the role of the Commission on Audit so that this problem will never arise in the future.37 There is an irreconcilable conflict between the second sentence of Section 20 of PD 198 prohibiting COA auditors from auditing LWDs and Sections 2(1) and 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution vesting in COA the power to audit all GOCCs. We rule that the second sentence of Section 20 of PD 198 is unconstitutional since it violates Sections 2(1) and 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution. On the Legality of COAs Practice of Charging Auditing Fees Petitioner claims that the auditing fees COA charges LWDs for audit services violate the prohibition in Section 18 of RA 6758,38 which states: Sec. 18. Additional Compensation of Commission on Audit Personnel and of other Agencies. In order to preserve the independence and integrity of the Commission on Audit (COA), its officials and employees are prohibited from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, government-owned or controlled corporations, and government financial institutions, except those compensation paid directly by COA out of its appropriations and contributions. Government entities, including government-owned or controlled corporations including financial institutions and local government units are hereby prohibited from assessing or billing other government entities, including government-owned or controlled corporations including financial institutions or local government units for services rendered by its officials and employees as part of their regular functions for purposes of paying additional compensation to said officials and employees. (Emphasis supplied) Claiming that Section 18 is "absolute and leaves no doubt,"39 petitioner asks COA to discontinue its practice of charging auditing fees to LWDs since such practice allegedly violates the law. Petitioners claim has no basis.

Section 18 of RA 6758 prohibits COA personnel from receiving any kind of compensation from any government entity except "compensation paid directly by COA out of its appropriations and contributions." Thus, RA 6758 itself recognizes an exception to the statutory ban on COA personnel receiving compensation from GOCCs. In Tejada v. Domingo,40 the Court declared: There can be no question that Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6758 is designed to strengthen further the policy x x x to preserve the independence and integrity of the COA, by explicitly PROHIBITING: (1) COA officials and employees from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, GOCCs and government financial institutions, except such compensation paid directly by the COA out of its appropriations and contributions, and (2) government entities, including GOCCs, government financial institutions and local government units from assessing or billing other government entities, GOCCs, government financial institutions or local government units for services rendered by the latters officials and employees as part of their regular functions for purposes of paying additional compensation to said officials and employees. xxx The first aspect of the strategy is directed to the COA itself, while the second aspect is addressed directly against the GOCCs and government financial institutions. Under the first, COA personnel assigned to auditing units of GOCCs or government financial institutions can receive only such salaries, allowances or fringe benefits paid directly by the COA out of its appropriations and contributions. The contributions referred to are the cost of audit services earlier mentioned which cannot include the extra emoluments or benefits now claimed by petitioners. The COA is further barred from assessing or billing GOCCs and government financial institutions for services rendered by its personnel as part of their regular audit functions for purposes of paying additional compensation to such personnel. x x x. (Emphasis supplied) In Tejada, the Court explained the meaning of the word "contributions" in Section 18 of RA 6758, which allows COA to charge GOCCs the cost of its audit services: x x x the contributions from the GOCCs are limited to the cost of audit services which are based on the actual cost of the audit function in the corporation concerned plus a reasonable rate to cover overhead expenses. The actual audit cost shall include personnel services, maintenance and other operating expenses, depreciation on capital and equipment and out-of-pocket expenses. In respect to the allowances and fringe benefits granted by the GOCCs to the COA personnel assigned to the formers auditing units, the same shall be directly defrayed by COA from its own appropriations x x x. 41 COA may charge GOCCs "actual audit cost" but GOCCs must pay the same directly to COA and not to COA auditors. Petitioner has not alleged that COA charges LWDs auditing fees in

excess of COAs "actual audit cost." Neither has petitioner alleged that the auditing fees are paid by LWDs directly to individual COA auditors. Thus, petiti oners contention must fail. WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Commission on Audit dated 3 January 2000 and the Decision dated 30 January 2001 denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration are AFFIRMED. The second sentence of Section 20 of Presidential Decree No. 198 is declared VOID for being inconsistent with Sections 2 (1) and 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution. No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, SandovalGutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

a) Principal b) Interest at 12% per annum c) Liquidated damages at 7% per annum d) Costs of suit e) Attorney's fees

P50,000.00 5,706.14 3,330.58 135.60 2,000.00

2) WHEREAS, the DEFENDANTS bind themselves, jointly and severally, and hereby promise to pay their aforementioned obligation to the PLAINTIFF at its business address at 301-305 Banquero St., (Ground Floor), Regina Building, Escolta, Manila, within sixty (60) days from March 16, 1962 or on or before May 14, 1962; 3) WHEREAS, in the event the DEFENDANTS FAIL to pay in full the total amount of PESOS SIXTY ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO & 32/100 (P61,172.32), Philippine Currency, for any reason whatsoever, on May 14, 1962, the PLAINTIFF shall be entitled, as a matter of right, to move for the execution of the decision to be rendered in the above-entitled case by this Honorable Court based on this COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. On March 17, 1962, the lower court rendered judgment embodying the contents of the said compromise agreement, the dispositive portion of which reads WHEREFORE, the Court hereby approves the above-quoted compromise agreement and renders judgment in accordance therewith, enjoining the parties to comply faithfully and strictly with the terms and conditions thereof, without special pronouncement as to costs. Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t On May 15, 1962, one day after the date fixed in the compromise agreement, within which the judgment debt would be paid, but was not, respondent Imperial Insurance Inc., filed a "Motion for the Insurance of a Writ of Execution". On May 23, 1962, a Writ of Execution was issued by respondent Sheriff of Manila and on May 26, 1962, Notices of Sale were sent out for the auction of the personal properties of the petitioner J.R.S. Business Corporation. On June 2, 1962, a Notice of Sale of the "whole capital stocks of the defendants JRS Business Corporation, the business name, right of operation, the whole assets, furnitures and equipments, the total liabilities, and Net Worth, books of accounts, etc., etc." of the petitioner corporation was, handed down. On June 9, the petitioner, thru counsel, presented an "Urgent Petition for Postponement of Auction Sale and for Release of Levy on the Business Name and

G.R. No. L-19891

July 31, 1964

J.R.S. BUSINESS CORPORATION, J.R. DA SILVA and A.J. BELTRAN, petitioners, vs. IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC., MACARIO M. OFILADA, Sheriff of Manila and HON. AGUSTIN MONTESA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents. Felipe N. Aurea for petitioners. Taada, Teehankee and Carreon for respondent Imperial Insurance, Inc. PAREDES, J.: Petitioner J. R. Da Silva, is the President of the J.R.S. Business Corporation, an establishment duly franchised by the Congress of the Philippines, to conduct a messenger and delivery express service. On July 12, 1961, the respondent Imperial Insurance, Inc., presented with the CFI of Manila a complaint (Civ. Case No. 47520), for sum of money against the petitioner corporation. After the defendants therein have submitted their Answer, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement, assisted by their respective counsels, the pertinent portions of which recite: 1) WHEREAS, the DEFENDANTS admit and confess their joint and solidary indebtedness to the PLAINTIFF in the full sum of PESOS SIXTY ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO & 32/100 (P61,172.32), Philippine Currency, itemized as follows:

Right to Operate of Defendant JRS Business Corporation", stating that petitioners were busy negotiating for a loan with which to pay the judgment debt; that the judgment was for money only and, therefore, plaintiff (respondent Insurance Company) was not authorized to take over and appropriate for its own use, the business name of the defendants; that the right to operate under the franchise, was not transferable and could not be considered a personal or immovable, property, subject to levy and sale. On June 10, 1962, a Supplemental Motion for Release of Execution, was filed by counsel of petitioner JRS Business Corporation, claiming that the capital stocks thereof, could not be levied upon and sold under execution. Under date of June 20, 1962, petitioner's counsel presented a pleading captioned "Very Urgent Motion for Postponement of Public Auction Sale and for Ruling on Motion for Release of Levy on the Business Name, Right to Operate and Capital Stocks of JRS Business Corporation". The auction sale was set for June 21, 1962. In said motion, petitioners alleged that the loan they had applied for, was to be secured within the next ten (10) days, and they would be able to discharge the judgment debt. Respondents opposed the said motion and on June 21, 1962, the lower court denied the motion for postponement of the auction sale. In the sale which was conducted in the premises of the JRS Business Corporation at 1341 Perez St., Paco, Manila, all the properties of said corporation contained in the Notices of Sale dated May 26, 1962, and June 2, 1962 (the latter notice being for the whole capital stocks of the defendant, JRS Business Corporation, the business name, right of operation, the whole assets, furnitures and equipments, the total liabilities and Net Worth, books of accounts, etc., etc.), were bought by respondent Imperial Insurance, Inc., for P10,000.00, which was the highest bid offered. Immediately after the sale, respondent Insurance Company took possession of the proper ties and started running the affairs and operating the business of the JRS Business Corporation. Hence, the present appeal. It would seem that the matters which need determination are (1) whether the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the Order of June 21, 1962, denying the motion for postponement of the scheduled sale at public auction, of the properties of petitioner; and (2) whether the business name or trade name, franchise (right to operate) and capital stocks of the petitioner are properties or property rights which could be the subject of levy, execution and sale. The respondent Court's act of postponing the scheduled sale was within the discretion of respondent Judge, the exercise of which, one way or the other, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion and/or excess of jurisdiction. There was a decision rendered and the corresponding writ of execution was issued. Respondent Judge had jurisdiction over the matter and erroneous conclusions of law or fact, if any, committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment, not correctible by certiorari (Villa Rey Transit v. Bello, et al., L-18957, April 23, 1963, and cases cited therein.) The corporation law, on forced sale of franchises, provides Any franchise granted to a corporation to collect tolls or to occupy, enjoy, or use public property or any portion of the public domain or any right of way over public property or the public domain, and any rights and privileges acquired under such franchise may be levied upon and sold under execution, together with the property necessary for the enjoyment, the exercise of the powers, and the receipt of the

proceeds of such franchise or right of way, in the same manner and with like effect as any other property to satisfy any judgment against the corporation: Provided, That the sale of the franchise or right of way and the property necessary for the enjoyment, the exercise of the powers, and the receipt of the proceeds of said franchise or right of way is especially decreed and ordered in the judgment: And provided, further, That the sale shall not become effective until confirmed by the court after due notice. (Sec. 56, Corporation Law.) In the case of Gulf Refining Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 108 So., 158, it was held The first question then for decision is the meaning of the word "franchise" in the statute. "A franchise is a special privilege conferred by governmental authority, and which does not belong to citizens of the country generally as a matter of common right. ... Its meaning depends more or less upon the connection in which the word is employed and the property and corporation to which it is applied. It may have different significations. "For practical purposes, franchises, so far as relating to corporations, are divisible into (1) corporate or general franchises; and (2) special or secondary franchises. The former is the franchise to exist as a corporation, while the latter are certain rights and privileges conferred upon existing corporations, such as the right to use the streets of a municipality to lay pipes or tracks, erect poles or string wires." 2 Fletcher's Cyclopedia Corp. See. 1148; 14 C.J. p. 160; Adams v. Yazon & M. V. R. Co., 24 So. 200, 317, 28 So. 956, 77 Miss. 253, 60 L.R.A. 33 et seq. The primary franchise of a corporation that is, the right to exist as such, is vested "in the individuals who compose the corporation and not in the corporation itself" (14 C.J. pp. 160, 161; Adams v. Railroad, supra; 2 Fletcher's Cyclopedia Corp. Secs. 1153, 1158; 3 Thompson on Corporations 2d Ed.] Secs. 2863, 2864), and cannot be conveyed in the absence of a legislative authority so to do (14A CJ. 543, 577; 1 Fletcher's Cyc. Corp. Sec. 1224; Memphis & L.R.R. Co. v. Berry 5 S. Ct. 299, 112 U.S. 609, 28 L.E.d. 837; Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 26 S. Ct. 660, 202 U.S. 453, 50 L.E.d. 1102, 6 Ann. Cas. 253; Arthur v. Commercial & Railroad Bank, 9 Smedes & M. 394, 48 Am. Dec. 719), but the specify or secondary franchises of a corporation are vested in the corporation and may ordinarily be conveyed or mortgaged under a general power granted to a corporation to dispose of its property (Adams v. Railroad, supra; 14A C.J. 542, 557; 3 Thompson on Corp. [2nd Ed.] Sec. 2909), except such special or secondary franchises as are charged with a public use (2 Fletcher's Cyc. Corp. see. 1225; 14A C.J. 544; 3 Thompson on Corp. [2d Ed.] sec. 2908; Arthur v. Commercial & R.R. Bank, supra; McAllister v. Plant, 54 Miss. 106).

The right to operate a messenger and express delivery service, by virtue of a legislative enactment, is admittedly a secondary franchise (R.A. No. 3260, entitled "An Act granting the JRS Business Corporation a franchise to conduct a messenger and express service)" and, as such, under our corporation law, is subject to levy and sale on execution together and including all the property necessary for the enjoyment thereof. The law, however, indicates the procedure under which the same (secondary franchise and the properties necessary for its enjoyment) may be sold under execution. Said franchise can be sold under execution, when such sale is especially decreed and ordered in the judgment and it becomes effective only when the sale is confirmed by the Court after due notice (Sec. 56, Corp. Law). The compromise agreement and the judgment based thereon, do not contain any special decree or order making the franchise answerable for the judgment debt. The same thing may be stated with respect to petitioner's trade name or business name and its capital stock. Incidentally, the trade name or business name corresponds to the initials of the President of the petitioner corporation and there can be no serious dispute regarding the fact that a trade name or business name and capital stock are necessarily included in the enjoyment of the franchise. Like that of a franchise, the law mandates, that property necessary for the enjoyment of said franchise, can only be sold to satisfy a judgment debt if the decision especially so provides. As We have stated heretofore, no such directive appears in the decision. Moreover, a trade name or business name cannot be sold separately from the franchise, and the capital stock of the petitioner corporation or any other corporation, for the matter, represents the interest and is the property of stockholders in the corporation, who can only be deprived thereof in the manner provided by law (Therbee v. Baker, 35 N.E. Eq. [8 Stew.] 501, 505; In re Wells' Estate, 144 N.W. 174, 177, Wis. 294, cited in 6 Words and Phrases, 109). It, therefore, results that the inclusion of the franchise, the trade name and/or business name and the capital stock of the petitioner corporation, in the sale of the properties of the JRS Business Corporation, has no justification. The sale of the properties of petitioner corporation is set aside, in so far as it authorizes the levy and sale of its franchise, trade name and capital stocks. Without pronouncement as to costs. ________________________________________________G.R. No. 125027 August 12, 2002

The Facts Petitioner Anita Mangila ("petitioner" for brevity) is an exporter of sea foods and doing business under the name and style of Seafoods Products. Private respondent Loreta Guina ("private respondent" for brevity) is the President and General Manager of Air Swift International, a single registered proprietorship engaged in the freight forwarding business. Sometime in January 1988, petitioner contracted the freight forwarding services of private respondent for shipment of petitioners products, such as crabs, prawns and assorted fishes, to Guam (USA) where petitioner maintains an outlet. Petitioner agreed to pay private respondent cash on delivery. Private respondents invoice stipulates a charge of 18 percent interest per annum on all overdue accounts. In case of suit, the same invoice stipulates attorneys fees equivalent to 25 percent of the amount due plus costs of suit.3 On the first shipment, petitioner requested for seven days within which to pay private respondent. However, for the next three shipments, March 17, 24 and 31, 1988, petitioner failed to pay private respondent shipping charges amounting to P109, 376.95. 4 Despite several demands, petitioner never paid private respondent. Thus, on June 10, 1988, private respondent filed Civil Case No. 5875 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for collection of sum of money. On August 1, 1988, the sheriff filed his Sheriffs Return showing that summons was not served on petitioner. A woman found at petitioners house informed the sheriff that petitioner transferred her residence to Sto. Nio, Guagua, Pampanga. The sheriff found out further that petitioner had left the Philippines for Guam.5 Thus, on September 13, 1988, construing petitioners departure from the Philippines as done with intent to defraud her creditors, private respondent filed a Motion for Preliminary Attachment. On September 26, 1988, the trial court issued an Order of Preliminary Attachment6 against petitioner. The following day, the trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. The trial court granted the request of its sheriff for assistance from their counterparts in RTC, Pampanga. Thus, on October 28, 1988, Sheriff Alfredo San Miguel of RTC Pampanga served on petitioners household help in San Fernando, Pampanga, the Notice of Levy with the Order, Affidavit and Bond.7 On November 7, 1988, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment 8 without submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. She pointed out that up to then, she had not been served a copy of the Complaint and the summons. Hence, petitioner claimed the court had not acquired jurisdiction over her person.9 In the hearing of the Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment on November 11, 1988, private respondent sought and was granted a re-setting to December 9, 1988. On that date, private

ANITA MANGILA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LORETA GUINA, respondents. CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition fore review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City. The trial court upheld the writ of attachment and the declaration of default on petitioner while ordering her to pay private respondent P109,376.95 plus 18 percent interest per annum, 25 percent attorneys fees and costs of suit.

respondents counsel did not appear, so the Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment was deemed submitted for resolution.10 The trial court granted the Motion to Discharge Attachment on January 13, 1989 upon filing of petitioners counter-bond. The trial court, however, did not rule on the question of jurisdiction and on the validity of the writ of preliminary attachment. On December 26, 1988, private respondent applied for an alias summons, which the trial court issued on January 19, 1989.11 It was only on January 26, 1989 that summons was finally served on petitioner.12 On February 9, 1989, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of improper venue. Private respondents invoice for the freight forwarding service stipulates that "if court litigation becomes necessary to enforce collection xxx the agreed venue for such action is Makati, Metro Manila."13 Private respondent filed an Opposition asserting that although "Makati" appears as the stipulated venue, the same was merely an inadvertence by the printing press whose general manager executed an affidavit14 admitting such inadvertence. Moreover, private respondent claimed that petitioner knew that private respondent was holding office in Pasay City and not in Makati.15 The lower court, finding credence in private respondents assertion, denied the Motion to Dismiss and gave petitioner five days to file her Answer. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this too was denied. Petitioner filed her Answer16 on June 16, 1989, maintaining her contention that the venue was improperly laid. On June 26, 1989, the trial court issued an Order setting the pre-trial for July 18, 1989 at 8:30 a.m. and requiring the parties to submit their pre-trial briefs. Meanwhile, private respondent filed a Motion to Sell Attached Properties but the trial court denied the motion. On motion of petitioner, the trial court issued an Order resetting the pre-trial from July 18, 1989 to August 24, 1989 at 8:30 a.m.. On August 24, 1989, the day of the pre-trial, the trial court issued an Order terminating the pre-trial and allowing the private respondent to present evidence ex-parte on September 12, 1989 at 8:30 a.m.. The Order stated that when the case was called for pre-trial at 8:31 a.m., only the counsel for private respondent appeared. Upon the trial courts second call 20 minutes later, petitioners counsel was still nowhere to be found. Thus, upon motion of private respondent, the pre-trial was considered terminated. On September 12, 1989, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration of the Order terminating the pre-trial. Petitioner explained that her counsel arrived 5 minutes after the second call, as shown by the transcript of stenographic notes, and was late because of heavy traffic. Petitioner claims that the lower court erred in allowing private respondent to present evidence ex-parte since there was no Order considering the petitioner as in default. Petitioner contends that the Order of August 24, 1989 did not state that petitioner was declared as in default but still the court allowed private respondent to present evidence ex-parte.18
17

On October 6, 1989, the trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and scheduled the presentation of private respondents evidence ex-parte on October 10, 1989.1wphi1.nt On October 10, 1989, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion stating that the presentation of evidence ex-parte should be suspended because there was no declaration of petitioner as in default and petitioners counsel was not absent, but merely late. On October 18, 1989, the trial court denied the Omnibus Motion. 19 On November 20, 1989, the petitioner received a copy of the Decision of November 10, 1989, ordering petitioner to pay respondent P109,376.95 plus 18 percent interest per annum, 25 percent attorneys fees and costs of suit. Private respondent filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal but the trial court denied the same. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals On December 15, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the issuance of the writ of attachment and sustained the filing of the action in the RTC of Pasay. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the declaration of default on petitioner and concluded that the trial court did not commit any reversible error. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 5, 1996 but the Court of Appeals denied the same in a Resolution dated May 20, 1996. Hence, this petition. The Issues The issues raised by petitioner may be re-stated as follows: I. WHETHER RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUED AND SERVED; II. WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID DECLARATION OF DEFAULT; III. WHETHER THERE WAS IMPROPER VENUE.

IV. WHETHER RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT PETITIONER IS OBLIGED TO PAY P109, 376.95, PLUS ATTORNEYS FEES.20 The Ruling of the Court Improper Issuance and Service of Writ of Attachment Petitioner ascribes several errors to the issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment. Among petitioners arguments are: first, there was no ground for the issuance of the writ since the intent to defraud her creditors had not been established; second, the value of the properties levied exceeded the value of private respondents claim. However, the crux of petitioners arguments rests on the question of the validity of the writ of attachment. Because of failure to serve summons on her before or simultaneously with the writs implementation, petitioner claims that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over her person and thus the service of the writ is void. As a preliminary note, a distinction should be made between issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment. It is necessary to distinguish between the two to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired to validly implement the writ. This distinction is crucial in resolving whether there is merit in petitioners argument. This Court has long settled the issue of when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional remedies. A party to a suit may, at any time after filing the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter."21 This phrase refers to the date of filing of the complaint which is the moment that marks "the commencement of the action." The reference plainly is to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues. In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,22 this Court clarified the actual time when jurisdiction should be had: "It goes without saying that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant - issuance of summons, order of attachment and writ of attachment - these do not and cannot bind and affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the court, either by service on him of summons or other coercive process or his voluntary submission to the courts authority. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the appli cants affidavit and attachment bond, and of the order of attachment, as explicitly required

by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of the complaint xxx." (Emphasis supplied.) Furthermore, we have held that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.23 In the instant case, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued on September 27, 1988 and implemented on October 28, 1988. However, the alias summons was served only on January 26, 1989 or almost three months after the implementation of the writ of attachment. The trial court had the authority to issue the Writ of Attachment on September 27 since a motion for its issuance can be filed "at the commencement of the action." However, on the day the writ was implemented, the trial court should have, previously or simultaneously with the implementation of the writ, acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Yet, as was shown in the records of the case, the summons was actually served on petitioner several months after the writ had been implemented. Private respondent, nevertheless, claims that the prior or contemporaneous service of summons contemplated in Section 5 of Rule 57 provides for exceptions. Among such exceptions are "where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts or where the defendant is a resident temporarily absent therefrom x x x." Private respondent asserts that when she commenced this action, she tried to serve summons on petitioner but the latter could not be located at her customary address in Kamuning, Quezon City or at her new address in Guagua, Pampanga.24 Furthermore, respondent claims that petitioner was not even in Pampanga; rather, she was in Guam purportedly on a business trip. Private respondent never showed that she effected substituted service on petitioner after her personal service failed. Likewise, if it were true that private respondent could not ascertain the whereabouts of petitioner after a diligent inquiry, still she had some other recourse under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules provide for certain remedies in cases where personal service could not be effected on a party. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that whenever the defendants "whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation x x x." Thus, if petitioners whereabouts could not be ascertained after the sheriff had served the summons at her given address, then respondent could have immediately asked the court for service of summons by publication on petitioner.25 Moreover, as private respondent also claims that petitioner was abroad at the time of the service of summons, this made petitioner a resident who is temporarily out of the country. This

is the exact situation contemplated in Section 16,26 Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, providing for service of summons by publication. In conclusion, we hold that the alias summons belatedly served on petitioner cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on petitioner without first obtaining jurisdiction over her person. The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case.27 The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service. Improper Venue Petitioner assails the filing of this case in the RTC of Pasay and points to a provision in private respondents invoice which contains the following: "3. If court litigation becomes necessary to enforce collection, an additional equivalent (sic) to 25% of the principal amount will be charged. The agreed venue for such action is Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines."28 Based on this provision, petitioner contends that the action should have been instituted in the RTC of Makati and to do otherwise would be a ground for the dismissal of the case. We resolve to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue but not for the reason stated by petitioner. The Rules of Court provide that parties to an action may agree in writing on the venue on which an action should be brought.29 However, a mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues.30 The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. Thus, absent words that show the parties intention to restrict the filing of a suit in a particular place, courts will allow the filing of a case in any venue, as long as jurisdictional requirements are followed. Venue stipulations in a contract, while considered valid and enforceable, do not as a rule supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court.31 In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, they should be considered merely as an agreement on additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.32 In the instant case, the stipulation does not limit the venue exclusively to Makati. There are no qualifying or restrictive words in the invoice that would evince the intention of the parties that Makati is the "only or exclusive" venue where the action could be instituted. We therefore agree with private respondent that Makati is not the only venue where this case could be filed. Nevertheless, we hold that Pasay is not the proper venue for this case.

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rule is venue in personal actions is "where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff."33 The exception to this rule is when the parties agree on an exclusive venue other than the places mentioned in the rules. But, as we have discussed, this exception is not applicable in this case. Hence, following the general rule, the instant case may be brought in the place of residence of the plaintiff or defendant, at the election of the plaintiff (private respondent herein). In the instant case, the residence of private respondent (plaintiff in the lower court) was not alleged in the complaint. Rather, what was alleged was the postal address of her sole proprietorship, Air Swift International. It was only when private respondent testified in court, after petitioner was declared in default, that she mentioned her residence to be in Better Living Subdivision, Paraaque City. In the earlier case of Sy v. Tyson Enterprises, Inc.,34 the reverse happened. The plaintiff in that case was Tyson Enterprises, Inc., a corporation owned and managed by Dominador Ti. The complaint, however, did not allege the office or place of business of the corporation, which was in Binondo, Manila. What was alleged was the residence of Dominador Ti, who lived in San Juan, Rizal. The case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig. The Court there held that the evident purpose of alleging the address of the corporations presiden t and manager was to justify the filing of the suit in Rizal, Pasig instead of in Manila. Thus, the Court ruled that there was no question that venue was improperly laid in that case and held that the place of business of Tyson Enterpises, Inc. is considered as its residence for purposes of venue. Furthermore, the Court held that the residence of its president is not the residence of the corporation because a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from that of its officers and stockholders. In the instant case, it was established in the lower court that petitioner resides in San Fernando, Pampanga35 while private respondent resides in Paraaque City.36 However, this case was brought in Pasay City, where the business of private respondent is found. This would have been permissible had private respondents business been a corporation, just like the case in Sy v. Tyson Enterprises, Inc. However, as admitted by private respondent in her Complaint37 in the lower court, her business is a sole proprietorship, and as such, does not have a separate juridical personality that could enable it to file a suit in court.38 In fact, there is no law authorizing sole proprietorships to file a suit in court.39 A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the enterprise.40 The law merely recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a single individual and requires its proprietor or owner to secure licenses and permits, register its business name, and pay taxes to the national government.41 The law does not vest a separate legal personality on the sole proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an action in court.42 Thus, not being vested with legal personality to file this case, the sole proprietorship is not the plaintiff in this case but rather Loreta Guina in her personal capacity. In fact, the complaint in the lower court acknowledges in its caption that the plaintiff and defendant are Loreta Guina and Anita Mangila, respectively. The title of the petition before us does not state, and rightly so, Anita Mangila v. Air Swift International, but rather Anita Mangila v. Loreta Guina.

Logically then, it is the residence of private respondent Guina, the proprietor with the juridical personality, which should be considered as one of the proper venues for this case. All these considered, private respondent should have filed this case either in San Fernando, Pampanga (petitioners residence) or Paraaque (private respondents residence). Since private respondent (complainant below) filed this case in Pasay, we hold that the case should be dismissed on the ground of improper venue. Although petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment in the lower court, petitioner expressly stated that she was filing the motion without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. At that time, petitioner had not been served the summons and a copy of the complaint.43 Thereafter, petitioner timely filed a Motion to Dismiss44 on the ground of improper venue. Rule 16, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that a motion to dismiss may be filed "[W]ithin the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim." Petitioner even raised the issue of improper venue in his Answer45 as a special and affirmative defense. Petitioner also continued to raise the issue of improper venue in her Petition for Review46 before this Court. We thus hold that the dismissal of this case on the ground of improper venue is warranted. The rules on venue, like other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding. Obviously, this objective will not be attained if the plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom to choose where to file the complaint or petition.47 We find no reason to rule on the other issues raised by petitioner.1wphi1.nt WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED on the grounds of improper venue and invalidity of the service of the writ of attachment. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of respondent judge denying the motion to dismiss are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 5875 is hereby dismissed without prejudice to refiling it in the proper venue. The attached properties of petitioner are ordered returned to her immediately. G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954

This is an action originally brought in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, to recover possesion of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City. Plaintiff's complaint was amended three times with respect to the extent and description of the land sought to be recovered. The original complaint described the land as a portion of a lot registered in plaintiff's name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37686 of the land record of Rizal Province and as containing an area of 13 hectares more or less. But the complaint was amended by reducing the area of 6 hectares, more or less, after the defendant had indicated the plaintiff's surveyors the portion of land claimed and occupied by him. The second amendment became necessary and was allowed following the testimony of plaintiff's surveyors that a portion of the area was embraced in another certificate of title, which was plaintiff's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37677. And still later, in the course of trial, after defendant's surveyor and witness, Quirino Feria, had testified that the area occupied and claimed by defendant was about 13 hectares, as shown in his Exhibit 1, plaintiff again, with the leave of court, amended its complaint to make its allegations conform to the evidence. Defendant, in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru "open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession (of land in dispute) under claim of ownership, adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessor in interest" from "time inmemorial". The answer further alleges that registration of the land in dispute was obtained by plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru "fraud or error and without knowledge (of) or interest either personal or thru publication to defendant and/or predecessors in interest." The answer therefore prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to defendant or pay its value. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be without any right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession thereof to plaintiff and to pay the latter a monthly rent of P132.62 from January, 1940, until he vacates the land, and also to pay the costs. Appealing directly to this court because of the value of the property involved, defendant makes the following assignment or errors: I. The trial court erred in not dismissing the case on the ground that the case was not brought by the real property in interest. II. The trial court erred in admitting the third amended complaint. III. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to strike. IV. The trial court erred in including in its decision land not involved in the litigation. V. The trial court erred in holding that the land in dispute is covered by transfer certificates of Title Nos. 37686 and 37677.

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. QUIRINO BOLAOS, defendant-appellant. Araneta and Araneta for appellee. Jose A. Buendia for appellant. REYES, J.:

Vl. The trial court erred in not finding that the defendant is the true and lawful owner of the land. VII. The trial court erred in finding that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of P132.62 monthly from January, 1940, until he vacates the premises. VIII. The trial court erred in not ordering the plaintiff to reconvey the land in litigation to the defendant. As to the first assigned error, there is nothing to the contention that the present action is not brought by the real party in interest, that is, by J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. What the Rules of Court require is that an action be brought in the name of, but not necessarily by, the real party in interest. (Section 2, Rule 2.) In fact the practice is for an attorney-at-law to bring the action, that is to file the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. That practice appears to have been followed in this case, since the complaint is signed by the law firm of Araneta and Araneta, "counsel for plaintiff" and commences with the statement "comes now plaintiff, through its undersigned counsel." It is true that the complaint also states that the plaintiff is "represented herein by its Managing Partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc.", another corporation, but there is nothing against one corporation being represented by another person, natural or juridical, in a suit in court. The contention that Gregorio Araneta, Inc. can not act as managing partner for plaintiff on the theory that it is illegal for two corporations to enter into a partnership is without merit, for the true rule is that "though a corporation has no power to enter into a partnership, it may nevertheless enter into a joint venture with another where the nature of that venture is in line with the business authorized by its charter." (Wyoming-Indiana Oil Gas Co. vs. Weston, 80 A. L. R., 1043, citing 2 Fletcher Cyc. of Corp., 1082.) There is nothing in the record to indicate that the venture in which plaintiff is represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc. as "its managing partner" is not in line with the corporate business of either of them. Errors II, III, and IV, referring to the admission of the third amended complaint, may be answered by mere reference to section 4 of Rule 17, Rules of Court, which sanctions such amendment. It reads: Sec. 4. Amendment to conform to evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects, as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at my time, even of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall be so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.

Under this provision amendment is not even necessary for the purpose of rendering judgment on issues proved though not alleged. Thus, commenting on the provision, Chief Justice Moran says in this Rules of Court: Under this section, American courts have, under the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ruled that where the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment to the complaint is necessary, especially where defendant has himself raised the point on which recovery is based, and that the appellate court treat the pleadings as amended to conform to the evidence, although the pleadings were not actually amended. (I Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 ed., 389-390.) Our conclusion therefore is that specification of error II, III, and IV are without merit.. Let us now pass on the errors V and VI. Admitting, though his attorney, at the early stage of the trial, that the land in dispute "is that described or represented in Exhibit A and in Exhibit B enclosed in red pencil with the name Quirino Bolaos," defendant later changed his lawyer and also his theory and tried to prove that the land in dispute was not covered by plaintiff's certificate of title. The evidence, however, is against defendant, for it clearly establishes that plaintiff is the registered owner of lot No. 4-B-3-C, situate in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City, with an area of 5,297,429.3 square meters, more or less, covered by transfer certificate of title No. 37686 of the land records of Rizal province, and of lot No. 4-B-4, situated in the same barrio, having an area of 74,789 square meters, more or less, covered by transfer certificate of title No. 37677 of the land records of the same province, both lots having been originally registered on July 8, 1914 under original certificate of title No. 735. The identity of the lots was established by the testimony of Antonio Manahan and Magno Faustino, witnesses for plaintiff, and the identity of the portion thereof claimed by defendant was established by the testimony of his own witness, Quirico Feria. The combined testimony of these three witnesses clearly shows that the portion claimed by defendant is made up of a part of lot 4-B-3-C and major on portion of lot 4-B-4, and is well within the area covered by the two transfer certificates of title already mentioned. This fact also appears admitted in defendant's answer to the third amended complaint. As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens certificate of title and was registered in 1914, the decree of registration can no longer be impugned on the ground of fraud, error or lack of notice to defendant, as more than one year has already elapsed from the issuance and entry of the decree. Neither court the decree be collaterally attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land prior to the registration proceedings. (Sorogon vs. Makalintal,1 45 Off. Gaz., 3819.) Nor could title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered owner, be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496.) Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title. (Valiente vs. Judge of CFI of Tarlac,2 etc., 45 Off. Gaz., Supp. 9, p. 43.) And it is likewise settled that the right to secure possession under a decree of registration does not prescribed. (Francisco vs. Cruz, 43 Off. Gaz., 5105, 5109-5110.) A recent decision of this Court on this point is that rendered in the case of Jose Alcantara et al., vs. Mariano et al., 92 Phil., 796. This disposes of the alleged errors V and VI. As to error VII, it is claimed that `there was no evidence to sustain the finding that defendant should be sentenced to pay plaintiff P132.62 monthly from January, 1940, until he vacates the

premises.' But it appears from the record that that reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, as stipulated at the hearing was P10 a month for each hectare and that the area occupied by defendant was 13.2619 hectares. The total rent to be paid for the area occupied should therefore be P132.62 a month. It is appears from the testimony of J. A. Araneta and witness Emigdio Tanjuatco that as early as 1939 an action of ejectment had already been filed against defendant. And it cannot be supposed that defendant has been paying rents, for he has been asserting all along that the premises in question 'have always been since time immemorial in open, continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession and under claim of ownership adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessors in interest.' This assignment of error is thus clearly without merit. Error No. VIII is but a consequence of the other errors alleged and needs for further consideration. During the pendency of this case in this Court appellant, thru other counsel, has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that there is pending before the Court of First Instance of Rizal another action between the same parties and for the same cause and seeking to sustain that allegation with a copy of the complaint filed in said action. But an examination of that complaint reveals that appellant's allegation is not correct, for the pretended identity of parties and cause of action in the two suits does not appear. That other case is one for recovery of ownership, while the present one is for recovery of possession. And while appellant claims that he is also involved in that order action because it is a class suit, the complaint does not show that such is really the case. On the contrary, it appears that the action seeks relief for each individual plaintiff and not relief for and on behalf of others. The motion for dismissal is clearly without merit. Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff.

LAGDAMEO, ERNESTO R. LAGDAMEO, JR., ENRIQUE R. LAGDAMEO, GEORGE F. LEE, RAUL A. BONCAN, BALDWIN YOUNG and AVELINO V. CRUZ, respondents. G.R. No. 75951 December 15, 1989 SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ERNESTO R. LAGDAMEO, ENRIQUE B. LAGDAMEO, GEORGE FL .EE RAUL A. BONCAN, BALDWIN YOUNG and AVELINO V. CRUX, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, WOLFGANG AURBACH, JOHN GRIFFIN, DAVID P. WHITTINGHAM, CHARLES CHAMSAY and LUCIANO SALAZAR, respondents. G.R. Nos. 75975-76 December 15, 1989 LUCIANO E. SALAZAR, petitioner, vs. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ERNESTO V. LAGDAMEO, ERNESTO R. LAGDAMEO, JR., ENRIQUE R. LAGDAMEO, GEORGE F. LEE, RAUL A. BONCAN, BALDWIN YOUNG, AVELINO V. CRUZ and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Belo, Abiera & Associates for petitioners in 75875. Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for Luciano E. Salazar.

_________________________________-Joint Venture

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: These consolidated petitions seek the review of the amended decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 05604 and 05617 which set aside the earlier decision dated June 5, 1986, of the then Intermediate Appellate Court and directed that in all subsequent elections for directors of Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation (Saniwares), American Standard Inc. (ASI) cannot nominate more than three (3) directors; that the Filipino stockholders shall not interfere in ASI's choice of its three (3) nominees; that, on the other hand, the Filipino stockholders can nominate only six (6) candidates and in the event they cannot agree on the six (6) nominees, they shall vote only among themselves to determine who the six (6) nominees will be, with cumulative voting to be allowed but without interference from ASI. The antecedent facts can be summarized as follows: In 1961, Saniwares, a domestic corporation was incorporated for the primary purpose of manufacturing and marketing sanitary wares. One of the incorporators, Mr. Baldwin

G.R. No. 75875 December 15, 1989 WOLRGANG AURBACH, JOHN GRIFFIN, DAVID P. WHITTINGHAM and CHARLES CHAMSAY, petitioners, vs. SANITARY WARES MANUFACTURING CORPORATOIN, ERNESTO V.

Young went abroad to look for foreign partners, European or American who could help in its expansion plans. On August 15, 1962, ASI, a foreign corporation domiciled in Delaware, United States entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. The parties agreed that the business operations in the Philippines shall be carried on by an incorporated enterprise and that the name of the corporation shall initially be "Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation." The Agreement has the following provisions relevant to the issues in these cases on the nomination and election of the directors of the corporation: 3. Articles of Incorporation (a) The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation shall be substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A and, insofar as permitted under Philippine law, shall specifically provide for (1) Cumulative voting for directors: xxx xxx xxx 5. Management (a) The management of the Corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors, which shall consist of nine individuals. As long as American-Standard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (pp. 51 & 53, Rollo of 75875) At the request of ASI, the agreement contained provisions designed to protect it as a minority group, including the grant of veto powers over a number of corporate acts and the right to designate certain officers, such as a member of the Executive Committee whose vote was required for important corporate transactions. Later, the 30% capital stock of ASI was increased to 40%. The corporation was also registered with the Board of Investments for availment of incentives with the condition that at least 60% of the capital stock of the corporation shall be owned by Philippine nationals. The joint enterprise thus entered into by the Filipino investors and the American corporation prospered. Unfortunately, with the business successes, there came a

deterioration of the initially harmonious relations between the two groups. According to the Filipino group, a basic disagreement was due to their desire to expand the export operations of the company to which ASI objected as it apparently had other subsidiaries of joint joint venture groups in the countries where Philippine exports were contemplated. On March 8, 1983, the annual stockholders' meeting was held. The meeting was presided by Baldwin Young. The minutes were taken by the Secretary, Avelino Cruz. After disposing of the preliminary items in the agenda, the stockholders then proceeded to the election of the members of the board of directors. The ASI group nominated three persons namely; Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin and David P. Whittingham. The Philippine investors nominated six, namely; Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Raul A. Boncan, Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., George F. Lee, and Baldwin Young. Mr. Eduardo R, Ceniza then nominated Mr. Luciano E. Salazar, who in turn nominated Mr. Charles Chamsay. The chairman, Baldwin Young ruled the last two nominations out of order on the basis of section 5 (a) of the Agreement, the consistent practice of the parties during the past annual stockholders' meetings to nominate only nine persons as nominees for the nine-member board of directors, and the legal advice of Saniwares' legal counsel. The following events then, transpired: ... There were protests against the action of the Chairman and heated arguments ensued. An appeal was made by the ASI representative to the body of stockholders present that a vote be taken on the ruling of the Chairman. The Chairman, Baldwin Young, declared the appeal out of order and no vote on the ruling was taken. The Chairman then instructed the Corporate Secretary to cast all the votes present and represented by proxy equally for the 6 nominees of the Philippine Investors and the 3 nominees of ASI, thus effectively excluding the 2 additional persons nominated, namely, Luciano E. Salazar and Charles Chamsay. The ASI representative, Mr. Jaqua protested the decision of the Chairman and announced that all votes accruing to ASI shares, a total of 1,329,695 (p. 27, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617) were being cumulatively voted for the three ASI nominees and Charles Chamsay, and instructed the Secretary to so vote. Luciano E. Salazar and other proxy holders announced that all the votes owned by and or represented by them 467,197 shares (p. 27, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617) were being voted cumulatively in favor of Luciano E. Salazar. The Chairman, Baldwin Young, nevertheless instructed the Secretary to cast all votes equally in favor of the three ASI nominees, namely, Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin and David Whittingham and the six originally nominated by Rogelio Vinluan, namely, Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Raul Boncan, Ernesto Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, George F. Lee, and Baldwin Young. The Secretary then certified for the election of the following Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham Ernesto Lagdameo, Sr., Ernesto Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, George F. Lee, Raul A. Boncan, Baldwin Young. The representative of ASI then moved to recess the meeting which was duly seconded. There was also a motion to adjourn (p. 28, Rollo, AC-G.R. SP No. 05617). This motion to adjourn was accepted by the Chairman, Baldwin Young, who

announced that the motion was carried and declared the meeting adjourned. Protests against the adjournment were registered and having been ignored, Mr. Jaqua the ASI representative, stated that the meeting was not adjourned but only recessed and that the meeting would be reconvened in the next room. The Chairman then threatened to have the stockholders who did not agree to the decision of the Chairman on the casting of votes bodily thrown out. The ASI Group, Luciano E. Salazar and other stockholders, allegedly representing 53 or 54% of the shares of Saniwares, decided to continue the meeting at the elevator lobby of the American Standard Building. The continued meeting was presided by Luciano E. Salazar, while Andres Gatmaitan acted as Secretary. On the basis of the cumulative votes cast earlier in the meeting, the ASI Group nominated its four nominees; Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham and Charles Chamsay. Luciano E. Salazar voted for himself, thus the said five directors were certified as elected directors by the Acting Secretary, Andres Gatmaitan, with the explanation that there was a tie among the other six (6) nominees for the four (4) remaining positions of directors and that the body decided not to break the tie. (pp. 3739, Rollo of 75975-76) These incidents triggered off the filing of separate petitions by the parties with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The first petition filed was for preliminary injunction by Saniwares, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin Young, Raul A. Bonean Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo and George F. Lee against Luciano Salazar and Charles Chamsay. The case was denominated as SEC Case No. 2417. The second petition was for quo warranto and application for receivership by Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham, Luciano E. Salazar and Charles Chamsay against the group of Young and Lagdameo (petitioners in SEC Case No. 2417) and Avelino F. Cruz. The case was docketed as SEC Case No. 2718. Both sets of parties except for Avelino Cruz claimed to be the legitimate directors of the corporation. The two petitions were consolidated and tried jointly by a hearing officer who rendered a decision upholding the election of the Lagdameo Group and dismissing the quo warranto petition of Salazar and Chamsay. The ASI Group and Salazar appealed the decision to the SEC en banc which affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The SEC decision led to the filing of two separate appeals with the Intermediate Appellate Court by Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David Whittingham and Charles Chamsay (docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 05604) and by Luciano E. Salazar (docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 05617). The petitions were consolidated and the appellate court in its decision ordered the remand of the case to the Securities and Exchange Commission with the directive that a new stockholders' meeting of Saniwares be ordered convoked as soon as possible, under the supervision of the Commission.

Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the appellees Lagdameo Group) the appellate court (Court of Appeals) rendered the questioned amended decision. Petitioners Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David P. Whittingham and Charles Chamsay in G.R. No. 75875 assign the following errors: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN EFFECT, UPHELD THE ALLEGED ELECTION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SANIWARES WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO ELECTION AT ALL. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROHIBITS THE STOCKHOLDERS FROM EXERCISING THEIR FULL VOTING RIGHTS REPRESENTED BY THE NUMBER OF SHARES IN SANIWARES, THUS DEPRIVING PETITIONERS AND THE CORPORATION THEY REPRESENT OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPOSES CONDITIONS AND READS PROVISIONS INTO THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT THERE, WHICH ACTION IT CANNOT LEGALLY DO. (p. 17, Rollo-75875) Petitioner Luciano E. Salazar in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 assails the amended decision on the following grounds: 11.1. ThatAmendedDecisionwouldsanctiontheCA'sdisregard of binding contractual agreements entered into by stockholders and the replacement of the conditions of such agreements with terms never contemplated by the stockholders but merely dictated by the CA . 11.2. The Amended decision would likewise sanction the deprivation of the property rights of stockholders without due process of law in order that a favored group of stockholders may be illegally benefitted and guaranteed a continuing monopoly of the control of a corporation. (pp. 14-15, Rollo-75975-76) On the other hand, the petitioners in G.R. No. 75951 contend that: I THE AMENDED DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT COURT, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF SANIWARES ARE DIVIDED INTO TWO BLOCKS, FAILS TO FULLY ENFORCE THE BASIC INTENT OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE LAW.

II THE AMENDED DECISION DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY RULE THAT PRIVATE PETITIONERS HEREIN WERE THE DULY ELECTED DIRECTORS DURING THE 8 MARCH 1983 ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS MEETING OF SANTWARES. (P. 24, Rollo-75951) The issues raised in the petitions are interrelated, hence, they are discussed jointly. The main issue hinges on who were the duly elected directors of Saniwares for the year 1983 during its annual stockholders' meeting held on March 8, 1983. To answer this question the following factors should be determined: (1) the nature of the business established by the parties whether it was a joint venture or a corporation and (2) whether or not the ASI Group may vote their additional 10% equity during elections of Saniwares' board of directors. The rule is that whether the parties to a particular contract have thereby established among themselves a joint venture or some other relation depends upon their actual intention which is determined in accordance with the rules governing the interpretation and construction of contracts. (Terminal Shares, Inc. v. Chicago, B. and Q.R. Co. (DC MO) 65 F Supp 678; Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co. 20 Cal. 2nd 751, 128 P 2nd 668) The ASI Group and petitioner Salazar (G.R. Nos. 75975-76) contend that the actual intention of the parties should be viewed strictly on the "Agreement" dated August 15,1962 wherein it is clearly stated that the parties' intention was to form a corporation and not a joint venture. They specifically mention number 16 under Miscellaneous Provisions which states: xxx xxx xxx c) nothing herein contained shall be construed to constitute any of the parties hereto partners or joint venturers in respect of any transaction hereunder. (At P. 66, Rollo-GR No. 75875) They object to the admission of other evidence which tends to show that the parties' agreement was to establish a joint venture presented by the Lagdameo and Young Group on the ground that it contravenes the parol evidence rule under section 7, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. According to them, the Lagdameo and Young Group never pleaded in their pleading that the "Agreement" failed to express the true intent of the parties. The parol evidence Rule under Rule 130 provides: It has been ruled:

Evidence of written agreements-When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing, except in the following cases: (a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing, or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleadings. (b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. Contrary to ASI Group's stand, the Lagdameo and Young Group pleaded in their Reply and Answer to Counterclaim in SEC Case No. 2417 that the Agreement failed to express the true intent of the parties, to wit: xxx xxx xxx 4. While certain provisions of the Agreement would make it appear that the parties thereto disclaim being partners or joint venturers such disclaimer is directed at third parties and is not inconsistent with, and does not preclude, the existence of two distinct groups of stockholders in Saniwares one of which (the Philippine Investors) shall constitute the majority, and the other ASI shall constitute the minority stockholder. In any event, the evident intention of the Philippine Investors and ASI in entering into the Agreement is to enter into ajoint venture enterprise, and if some words in the Agreement appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former (Art. 1370, New Civil Code). The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly (Art. 1374, New Civil Code). Moreover, in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. (Art. 1371, New Civil Code). (Part I, Original Records, SEC Case No. 2417)

In an action at law, where there is evidence tending to prove that the parties joined their efforts in furtherance of an enterprise for their joint profit, the question whether they intended by their agreement to create a joint adventure, or to assume some other relation is a question of fact for the jury. (Binder v. Kessler v 200 App. Div. 40,192 N Y S 653; Pyroa v. Brownfield (Tex. Civ. A.)

238 SW 725; Hoge v. George, 27 Wyo, 423, 200 P 96 33 C.J. p. 871) In the instant cases, our examination of important provisions of the Agreement as well as the testimonial evidence presented by the Lagdameo and Young Group shows that the parties agreed to establish a joint venture and not a corporation. The history of the organization of Saniwares and the unusual arrangements which govern its policy making body are all consistent with a joint venture and not with an ordinary corporation. As stated by the SEC: According to the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Baldwin Young, he negotiated the Agreement with ASI in behalf of the Philippine nationals. He testified that ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Philippine National group of investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority. An examination of the Agreement shows that certain provisions were included to protect the interests of ASI as the minority. For example, the vote of 7 out of 9 directors is required in certain enumerated corporate acts [Sec. 3 (b) (ii) (a) of the Agreement]. ASI is contractually entitled to designate a member of the Executive Committee and the vote of this member is required for certain transactions [Sec. 3 (b) (i)]. The Agreement also requires a 75% super-majority vote for the amendment of the articles and by-laws of Saniwares [Sec. 3 (a) (iv) and (b) (iii)]. ASI is also given the right to designate the president and plant manager [Sec. 5 (6)]. The Agreement further provides that the sales policy of Saniwares shall be that which is normally followed by ASI [Sec. 13 (a)] and that Saniwares should not export "Standard" products otherwise than through ASI's Export Marketing Services [Sec. 13 (6)]. Under the Agreement, ASI agreed to provide technology and know-how to Saniwares and the latter paid royalties for the same. (At p. 2). xxx xxx xxx It is pertinent to note that the provisions of the Agreement requiring a 7 out of 9 votes of the board of directors for certain actions, in effect gave ASI (which designates 3 directors under the Agreement) an effective veto power. Furthermore, the grant to ASI of the right to designate certain officers of the corporation; the super-majority voting requirements for amendments of the articles and by-laws; and most significantly to the issues of tms case, the provision that ASI shall designate 3 out of the 9 directors and the other stockholders shall designate the other 6, clearly indicate

that there are two distinct groups in Saniwares, namely ASI, which owns 40% of the capital stock and the Philippine National stockholders who own the balance of 60%, and that 2) ASI is given certain protections as the minority stockholder. Premises considered, we believe that under the Agreement there are two groups of stockholders who established a corporation with provisions for a special contractual relationship between the parties, i.e., ASI and the other stockholders. (pp. 4-5) Section 5 (a) of the agreement uses the word "designated" and not "nominated" or "elected" in the selection of the nine directors on a six to three ratio. Each group is assured of a fixed number of directors in the board. Moreover, ASI in its communications referred to the enterprise as joint venture. Baldwin Young also testified that Section 16(c) of the Agreement that "Nothing herein contained shall be construed to constitute any of the parties hereto partners or joint venturers in respect of any transaction hereunder" was merely to obviate the possibility of the enterprise being treated as partnership for tax purposes and liabilities to third parties. Quite often, Filipino entrepreneurs in their desire to develop the industrial and manufacturing capacities of a local firm are constrained to seek the technology and marketing assistance of huge multinational corporations of the developed world. Arrangements are formalized where a foreign group becomes a minority owner of a firm in exchange for its manufacturing expertise, use of its brand names, and other such assistance. However, there is always a danger from such arrangements. The foreign group may, from the start, intend to establish its own sole or monopolistic operations and merely uses the joint venture arrangement to gain a foothold or test the Philippine waters, so to speak. Or the covetousness may come later. As the Philippine firm enlarges its operations and becomes profitable, the foreign group undermines the local majority ownership and actively tries to completely or predominantly take over the entire company. This undermining of joint ventures is not consistent with fair dealing to say the least. To the extent that such subversive actions can be lawfully prevented, the courts should extend protection especially in industries where constitutional and legal requirements reserve controlling ownership to Filipino citizens. The Lagdameo Group stated in their appellees' brief in the Court of Appeal In fact, the Philippine Corporation Code itself recognizes the right of stockholders to enter into agreements regarding the exercise of their voting rights. Sec. 100. Agreements by stockholders.-

xxx xxx xxx 2. An agreement between two or more stockholders, if in writing and signed by the parties thereto, may provide that in exercising any voting rights, the shares held by them shall be voted as therein provided, or as they may agree, or as determined in accordance with a procedure agreed upon by them. Appellants contend that the above provision is included in the Corporation Code's chapter on close corporations and Saniwares cannot be a close corporation because it has 95 stockholders. Firstly, although Saniwares had 95 stockholders at the time of the disputed stockholders meeting, these 95 stockholders are not separate from each other but are divisible into groups representing a single Identifiable interest. For example, ASI, its nominees and lawyers count for 13 of the 95 stockholders. The YoungYutivo family count for another 13 stockholders, the Chamsay family for 8 stockholders, the Santos family for 9 stockholders, the Dy family for 7 stockholders, etc. If the members of one family and/or business or interest group are considered as one (which, it is respectfully submitted, they should be for purposes of determining how closely held Saniwares is there were as of 8 March 1983, practically only 17 stockholders of Saniwares. (Please refer to discussion in pp. 5 to 6 of appellees' Rejoinder Memorandum dated 11 December 1984 and Annex "A" thereof). Secondly, even assuming that Saniwares is technically not a close corporation because it has more than 20 stockholders, the undeniable fact is that it is a close-held corporation. Surely, appellants cannot honestly claim that Saniwares is a public issue or a widely held corporation. In the United States, many courts have taken a realistic approach to joint venture corporations and have not rigidly applied principles of corporation law designed primarily for public issue corporations. These courts have indicated that express arrangements between corporate joint ventures should be construed with less emphasis on the ordinary rules of law usually applied to corporate entities and with more consideration given to the nature of the agreement between the joint venturers (Please see Wabash Ry v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 7 F 2d 335; Chicago, M & St. P. Ry v. Des Moines Union Ry; 254 Ass'n. 247 US. 490'; Seaboard Airline Ry v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry; 240 N.C. 495,.82 S.E. 2d 771; Deboy v. Harris, 207 Md., 212,113 A 2d 903; Hathway v. Porter Royalty Pool, Inc., 296 Mich. 90, 90, 295 N.W. 571; Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U.S. 262; "The Legal Status of Joint Venture Corporations", 11 Vand Law Rev. p. 680,1958).

These American cases dealt with legal questions as to the extent to which the requirements arising from the corporate form of joint venture corporations should control, and the courts ruled that substantial justice lay with those litigants who relied on the joint venture agreement rather than the litigants who relied on the orthodox principles of corporation law. As correctly held by the SEC Hearing Officer: It is said that participants in a joint venture, in organizing the joint venture deviate from the traditional pattern of corporation management. A noted authority has pointed out that just as in close corporations, shareholders' agreements in joint venture corporations often contain provisions which do one or more of the following: (1) require greater than majority vote for shareholder and director action; (2) give certain shareholders or groups of shareholders power to select a specified number of directors; (3) give to the shareholders control over the selection and retention of employees; and (4) set up a procedure for the settlement of disputes by arbitration (See I O' Neal, Close Corporations, 1971 ed., Section 1.06a, pp. 15-16) (Decision of SEC Hearing Officer, P. 16) Thirdly paragraph 2 of Sec. 100 of the Corporation Code does not necessarily imply that agreements regarding the exercise of voting rights are allowed only in close corporations. As Campos and Lopez-Campos explain: Paragraph 2 refers to pooling and voting agreements in particular. Does this provision necessarily imply that these agreements can be valid only in close corporations as defined by the Code? Suppose that a corporation has twenty five stockholders, and therefore cannot qualify as a close corporation under section 96, can some of them enter into an agreement to vote as a unit in the election of directors? It is submitted that there is no reason for denying stockholders of corporations other than close ones the right to enter into not voting or pooling agreements to protect their interests, as long as they do not intend to commit any wrong, or fraud on the other stockholders not parties to the agreement. Of course, voting or pooling agreements are perhaps more useful and more often resorted to in close corporations. But they may also be found necessary even in widely held corporations. Moreover, since the Code limits the legal meaning of close corporations to those which comply with the requisites laid down by section 96, it is entirely possible that a corporation which is in fact a close corporation will not come within the definition. In such case, its stockholders should not be precluded from entering into

contracts like voting agreements if these are otherwise valid. (Campos & Lopez-Campos, op cit, p. 405) In short, even assuming that sec. 5(a) of the Agreement relating to the designation or nomination of directors restricts the right of the Agreement's signatories to vote for directors, such contractual provision, as correctly held by the SEC, is valid and binding upon the signatories thereto, which include appellants. (Rollo No. 75951, pp. 90-94) In regard to the question as to whether or not the ASI group may vote their additional equity during elections of Saniwares' board of directors, the Court of Appeals correctly stated: As in other joint venture companies, the extent of ASI's participation in the management of the corporation is spelled out in the Agreement. Section 5(a) hereof says that three of the nine directors shall be designated by ASI and the remaining six by the other stockholders, i.e., the Filipino stockholders. This allocation of board seats is obviously in consonance with the minority position of ASI. Having entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it is imperative that the parties should honor and adhere to their respective rights and obligations thereunder. Appellants seem to contend that any allocation of board seats, even in joint venture corporations, are null and void to the extent that such may interfere with the stockholder's rights to cumulative voting as provided in Section 24 of the Corporation Code. This Court should not be prepared to hold that any agreement which curtails in any way cumulative voting should be struck down, even if such agreement has been freely entered into by experienced businessmen and do not prejudice those who are not parties thereto. It may well be that it would be more cogent to hold, as the Securities and Exchange Commission has held in the decision appealed from, that cumulative voting rights may be voluntarily waived by stockholders who enter into special relationships with each other to pursue and implement specific purposes, as in joint venture relationships between foreign and local stockholders, so long as such agreements do not adversely affect third parties. In any event, it is believed that we are not here called upon to make a general rule on this question. Rather, all that needs to be done is to give life and effect to the particular contractual rights and obligations which the parties have assumed for themselves.

On the one hand, the clearly established minority position of ASI and the contractual allocation of board seats Cannot be disregarded. On the other hand, the rights of the stockholders to cumulative voting should also be protected. In our decision sought to be reconsidered, we opted to uphold the second over the first. Upon further reflection, we feel that the proper and just solution to give due consideration to both factors suggests itself quite clearly. This Court should recognize and uphold the division of the stockholders into two groups, and at the same time uphold the right of the stockholders within each group to cumulative voting in the process of determining who the group's nominees would be. In practical terms, as suggested by appellant Luciano E. Salazar himself, this means that if the Filipino stockholders cannot agree who their six nominees will be, a vote would have to be taken among the Filipino stockholders only. During this voting, each Filipino stockholder can cumulate his votes. ASI, however, should not be allowed to interfere in the voting within the Filipino group. Otherwise, ASI would be able to designate more than the three directors it is allowed to designate under the Agreement, and may even be able to get a majority of the board seats, a result which is clearly contrary to the contractual intent of the parties. Such a ruling will give effect to both the allocation of the board seats and the stockholder's right to cumulative voting. Moreover, this ruling will also give due consideration to the issue raised by the appellees on possible violation or circumvention of the AntiDummy Law (Com. Act No. 108, as amended) and the nationalization requirements of the Constitution and the laws if ASI is allowed to nominate more than three directors. (Rollo75875, pp. 38-39) The ASI Group and petitioner Salazar, now reiterate their theory that the ASI Group has the right to vote their additional equity pursuant to Section 24 of the Corporation Code which gives the stockholders of a corporation the right to cumulate their votes in electing directors. Petitioner Salazar adds that this right if granted to the ASI Group would not necessarily mean a violation of the Anti-Dummy Act (Commonwealth Act 108, as amended). He cites section 2-a thereof which provides: And provided finally that the election of aliens as members of the board of directors or governing body of corporations or associations engaging in partially nationalized activities shall be allowed in proportion to their allowable participation or share in the capital of such entities. (amendments introduced by Presidential Decree 715, section 1, promulgated May 28, 1975)

The ASI Group's argument is correct within the context of Section 24 of the Corporation Code. The point of query, however, is whether or not that provision is applicable to a joint venture with clearly defined agreements: The legal concept of ajoint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is in fact hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. Blackner v. Mc Dermott, 176 F. 2d. 498, [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P. 2d., 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal. 2d. 183, 288 P. 2d. 12 289 P. 2d. 242 [1955]). The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdictions is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tufts v. Mann 116 Cal. App. 170, 2 P. 2d. 500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 111. 595, 71 NE 2d. 74 [1947]; Gates v. Megargel 266 Fed. 811 [1920]). This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolanos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]) (Campos and Lopez-Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981) Moreover, the usual rules as regards the construction and operations of contracts generally apply to a contract of joint venture. (O' Hara v. Harman 14 App. Dev. (167) 43 NYS 556). Bearing these principles in mind, the correct view would be that the resolution of the question of whether or not the ASI Group may vote their additional equity lies in the agreement of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court was correct in upholding the agreement of the parties as regards the allocation of director seats under Section 5 (a) of the "Agreement," and the right of each group of stockholders to cumulative voting in the process of determining who the group's nominees would be under Section 3 (a) (1) of the "Agreement." As pointed out by SEC, Section 5 (a) of the Agreement relates to the manner of nominating the members of the board of directors while Section 3 (a) (1) relates to the manner of voting for these nominees.

This is the proper interpretation of the Agreement of the parties as regards the election of members of the board of directors. To allow the ASI Group to vote their additional equity to help elect even a Filipino director who would be beholden to them would obliterate their minority status as agreed upon by the parties. As aptly stated by the appellate court: ... ASI, however, should not be allowed to interfere in the voting within the Filipino group. Otherwise, ASI would be able to designate more than the three directors it is allowed to designate under the Agreement, and may even be able to get a majority of the board seats, a result which is clearly contrary to the contractual intent of the parties. Such a ruling will give effect to both the allocation of the board seats and the stockholder's right to cumulative voting. Moreover, this ruling will also give due consideration to the issue raised by the appellees on possible violation or circumvention of the AntiDummy Law (Com. Act No. 108, as amended) and the nationalization requirements of the Constitution and the laws if ASI is allowed to nominate more than three directors. (At p. 39, Rollo, 75875) Equally important as the consideration of the contractual intent of the parties is the consideration as regards the possible domination by the foreign investors of the enterprise in violation of the nationalization requirements enshrined in the Constitution and circumvention of the Anti-Dummy Act. In this regard, petitioner Salazar's position is that the Anti-Dummy Act allows the ASI group to elect board directors in proportion to their share in the capital of the entity. It is to be noted, however, that the same law also limits the election of aliens as members of the board of directors in proportion to their allowance participation of said entity. In the instant case, the foreign Group ASI was limited to designate three directors. This is the allowable participation of the ASI Group. Hence, in future dealings, this limitation of six to three board seats should always be maintained as long as the joint venture agreement exists considering that in limiting 3 board seats in the 9-man board of directors there are provisions already agreed upon and embodied in the parties' Agreement to protect the interests arising from the minority status of the foreign investors. With these findings, we the decisions of the SEC Hearing Officer and SEC which were impliedly affirmed by the appellate court declaring Messrs. Wolfgang Aurbach, John Griffin, David P Whittingham, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin young, Raul A. Boncan, Emesto V. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, and George F. Lee as the duly elected directors of Saniwares at the March 8,1983 annual stockholders' meeting. On the other hand, the Lagdameo and Young Group (petitioners in G.R. No. 75951) object to a cumulative voting during the election of the board of directors of the enterprise as ruled by the appellate court and submits that the six (6) directors allotted

the Filipino stockholders should be selected by consensus pursuant to section 5 (a) of the Agreement which uses the word "designate" meaning " nominate, delegate or appoint." They also stress the possibility that the ASI Group might take control of the enterprise if the Filipino stockholders are allowed to select their nominees separately and not as a common slot determined by the majority of their group. Section 5 (a) of the Agreement which uses the word designates in the allocation of board directors should not be interpreted in isolation. This should be construed in relation to section 3 (a) (1) of the Agreement. As we stated earlier, section 3(a) (1) relates to the manner of voting for these nominees which is cumulative voting while section 5(a) relates to the manner of nominating the members of the board of directors. The petitioners in G.R. No. 75951 agreed to this procedure, hence, they cannot now impugn its legality. The insinuation that the ASI Group may be able to control the enterprise under the cumulative voting procedure cannot, however, be ignored. The validity of the cumulative voting procedure is dependent on the directors thus elected being genuine members of the Filipino group, not voters whose interest is to increase the ASI share in the management of Saniwares. The joint venture character of the enterprise must always be taken into account, so long as the company exists under its original agreement. Cumulative voting may not be used as a device to enable ASI to achieve stealthily or indirectly what they cannot accomplish openly. There are substantial safeguards in the Agreement which are intended to preserve the majority status of the Filipino investors as well as to maintain the minority status of the foreign investors group as earlier discussed. They should be maintained. WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 and G.R. No. 75875 are DISMISSED and the petition in G.R. No. 75951 is partly GRANTED. The amended decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED in that Messrs. Wolfgang Aurbach John Griffin, David Whittingham Emesto V. Lagdameo, Baldwin Young, Raul A. Boncan, Ernesto R. Lagdameo, Jr., Enrique Lagdameo, and George F. Lee are declared as the duly elected directors of Saniwares at the March 8,1983 annual stockholders' meeting. In all other respects, the questioned decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 75975-76 and G.R. No. 75875. SO ORDERED.

MA. CLARITA T. LAZATIN-MAGAT, JOSE SERAFIN T. LAZATIN, JAIME TEODORO T. LAZATIN and JOSE MARCOS T. LAZATIN, Respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69200 and its Resolution2 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration thereof. The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows: Primelink Properties and Development Corporation (Primelink for brevity) is a domestic corporation engaged in real estate development. Rafaelito W. Lopez is its President and Chief Executive Officer.3 Ma. Clara T. Lazatin-Magat and her brothers, Jose Serafin T. Lazatin, Jaime T. Lazatin and Jose Marcos T. Lazatin (the Lazatins for brevity), are co-owners of two (2) adjoining parcels of land, with a combined area of 30,000 square meters, located in Tagaytay City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-108484 of the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City. On March 10, 1994, the Lazatins and Primelink, represented by Lopez, in his capacity as President, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement5 (JVA) for the development of the aforementioned property into a residential subdivision to be known as "Tagaytay Garden Villas." Under the JVA, the Lazatin siblings obliged themselves to contribute the two parcels of land as their share in the joint venture. For its part, Primelink undertook to contribute money, labor, personnel, machineries, equipment, contractors pool, marketing activities, managerial expertise and other needed resources to develop the property and construct therein the units for sale to the public. Specifically, Primelink bound itself to accomplish the following, upon the execution of the deed: a.) Survey the land, and prepare the projects master plans, engineering designs, structural and architectural plans, site development plans, and such other need plans in accordance with existing laws and the rules and regulations of appropriate government institutions, firms or agencies; b.) Secure and pay for all the licenses, permits and clearances needed for the projects;

G.R. No. 167379

June 27, 2006

PRIMELINK PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and RAFAELITO W. LOPEZ, Petitioners, vs.

c.) Furnish all materials, equipment, labor and services for the development of the land in preparation for the construction and sale of the different types of units (single-detached, duplex/twin, cluster and row house);

d.) Guarantee completion of the land development work if not prevented by force majeure or fortuitous event or by competent authority, or other unavoidable circumstances beyond the DEVELOPERS control, not to exceed three years from the date of the signing of this Joint Venture Agreement, except the installation of the electrical facilities which is solely MERALCOS responsibility; e.) Provide necessary manpower resources, like executive and managerial officers, support personnel and marketing staff, to handle all services related to land and housing development (administrative and construction) and marketing (sales, advertising and promotions).6 The Lazatins and Primelink covenanted that they shall be entitled to draw allowances/advances as follows: 1. During the first two years of the Project, the DEVELOPER and the LANDOWNER can draw allowances or make advances not exceeding a total of twenty percent (20%) of the net revenue for that period, on the basis of sixty percent (60%) for the DEVELOPER and forty percent (40%) for the LANDOWNERS. The drawing allowances/advances are limited to twenty percent (20%) of the net revenue for the first two years, in order to have sufficient reserves or funds to protect and/or guarantee the construction and completion of the different types of units mentioned above. 2. After two years, the DEVELOPER and the LANDOWNERS shall be entitled to drawing allowances and/or advances equivalent to sixty percent (60%) and forty percent (40%), respectively, of the total net revenue or income of the sale of the units.7 They also agreed to share in the profits from the joint venture, thus: 1. The DEVELOPER shall be entitled to sixty percent (60%) of the net revenue or income of the Joint Venture project, after deducting all expenses incurred in connection with the land development (such as administrative management and construction expenses), and marketing (such as sales, advertising and promotions), and 2. The LANDOWNERS shall be entitled to forty percent (40%) of the net revenue or income of the Joint Venture project, after deducting all the above-mentioned expenses.8 Primelink submitted to the Lazatins its Projection of the Sales-Income-Cost of the project: SALES-INCOME-COST PROJECTION

lawphil.net SELLING PRICE CLUSTER: A1 3,200,000 TWIN: B1 2,500,000 SINGLE: C1 3,500,000 C2 1,400,000 = 2,100,000 x 16 = 33,600,000.00 B2 960,000 = 1,540,000 x 24 = 36,960,000.00 A2 1,260,000 = 1,940,000 x 24 = P 46,560,000.00 COST PRICE DIFFERENCE INCOME

ROW-TYPE TOWNHOMES: D1 1,600,000 D2 700,000 = 900,000 x 24 = 21,600,000.00 P138,720,000.00 (GROSS) Total Cash Price (A1+B1+C1+D1) Total Building Expense (A2+B2+C2+D2) COMPUTATION OF ADDL. INCOME ON INTEREST TCP x 30% D/P Balance = 70% x .03069 x 48 = = = P 69,360,000 161,840,000 P238,409,740 238,409,740.00 P307,769,740.00 P 69,360,000.00 = P231,200,000.00 = 92,480,000.00

Total Amount (TCP + int. earn.) EXPENSES: less: A B C D E Building expenses Commission (8% of TCP) Admin. & Mgmt. expenses (2% of TCP) Advertising & Promo exp. (2% of TCP) Building expenses for the open spaces and Amenities (Development cost not incl. Housing) 400 x 30,000 sqms.

P 92,480,000.00 18,496,000.00 4,624,000.00 4,624,000.00

12,000,000.00 P132,224,000.00

TOTAL EXPENSES (A+B+C+D+E)

RECONCILIATION OF INCOME VS. EXPENSES Total Projected Income (incl. income from interest earn.) less: Total Expenses P307,769,740.00 132,224,000.00 P175,545,740.009

to heed said demand. After a succession of letters with still no action from defendants, plaintiffs sent a letter on October 22, 1997, a letter formally rescinding the JVA. Plaintiffs also claimed that in a sales-income-costs projection prepared and submitted by defendants, they (plaintiffs) stood to receive the amount of P70,218,296.00 as their net share in the joint venture project; to date, however, after almost four (4) years and despite the undertaking in the JVA that plaintiffs shall initially get 20% of the agreed net revenue during the first two (2) years (on the basis of the 60%-40% sharing) and their full 40% share thereafter, defendants had yet to deliver these shares to plaintiffs which by conservative estimates would amount to no less than P40,000,000.00.15 Plaintiffs prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in their favor, thus: WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that a temporary restraining order be forthwith issued enjoining the defendants to immediately stop their land development, construction and marketing of the housing units in the aforesaid project; after due proceedings, to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining and prohibiting said land development, construction and marketing of housing units, pending the disposition of the instant case. After trial, a decision be rendered: 1. Rescinding the Joint Venture Agreement executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants; 2. Immediately restoring to the plaintiffs possession of the subject parcels of land; 3. Ordering the defendants to render an accounting of all income generated as well as expenses incurred and disbursement made in connection with the project; 4. Making the Writ of Preliminary Injunction permanent; 5. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the amount Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000.00) in actual and/or compensatory damages; 6. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in exemplary damages; 7. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total amount due as and for attorneys fees; and 8. To pay the costs of this suit. Other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable are likewise being prayed for. 16

The parties agreed that any unsettled or unresolved misunderstanding or conflicting opinions between the parties relative to the interpretation, scope and reach, and the enforcement/implementation of any provision of the agreement shall be referred to Voluntary Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Law.10 The Lazatins agreed to subject the title over the subject property to an escrow agreement. Conformably with the escrow agreement, the owners duplicate of the title was deposited with the China Banking Corporation.11 However, Primelink failed to immediately secure a Development Permit from Tagaytay City, and applied the permit only on August 30, 1995. On October 12, 1995, the City issued a Development Permit to Primelink. 12 In a Letter13 dated April 10, 1997, the Lazatins, through counsel, demanded that Primelink comply with its obligations under the JVA, otherwise the appropriate action would be filed against it to protect their rights and interests. This impelled the officers of Primelink to meet with the Lazatins and enabled the latter to review its business records/papers. In another Letter14 dated October 22, 1997, the Lazatins informed Primelink that they had decided to rescind the JVA effective upon its receipt of the said letter. The Lazatins demanded that Primelink cease and desist from further developing the property. Subsequently, on January 19, 1998, the Lazatins filed, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, a complaint for rescission accounting and damages, with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against Primelink and Lopez. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1776. Plaintiffs alleged, among others, that, despite the lapse of almost four (4) years from the execution of the JVA and the delivery of the title and possession of the land to defendants, the land development aspect of the project had not yet been completed, and the construction of the housing units had not yet made any headway, based on the following facts, namely: (a) of the 50 housing units programmed for Phase I, only the following types of houses appear on the site in these condition: (aa) single detached, one completed and two units uncompleted; (bb) cluster houses, one unit nearing completion; (cc) duplex, two units completed and two units unfinished; and (dd) row houses, two units, completed; (b) in Phase II thereof, all that was done by the defendants was to grade the area; the units so far constructed had been the object of numerous complaints by their owners/purchasers for poor workmanship and the use of sub-standard materials in their construction, thus, undermining the projects marketability. Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants had, without justifiable reason, completely disregarded previously agreed accounting and auditing procedures, checks and balances system installed for the mutual protection of both parties, and the scheduled regular meetings were seldom held to the detriment and disadvantage of plaintiffs. They averred that they sent a letter through counsel, demanding compliance of what was agreed upon under the agreement but defendants refused

Defendants opposed plaintiffs plea for a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that plaintiffs complaint was premature, due to their failure to refer their complaint to a Voluntary Arbitrator pursuant to the JVA in relation to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 876 before filing their complaint in the RTC. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint under Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court: WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an Order be issued: a) dismissing the Complaint on the basis of Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the aforecited Rules of Court, or, in the alternative, b) requiring the plaintiffs to make initiatory step for arbitration by filing the demand to arbitrate, and then asking the parties to resolve their controversies, pursuant to the Arbitration Law, or in the alternative; c) staying or suspending the proceedings in captioned case until the completion of the arbitration, and d) denying the plaintiffs prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction. Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable in the premises are prayed for. 17 In the meantime, before the expiration of the reglementary period to answer the complaint, defendants, invoking their counsels heavy workload, prayed for a 15 -day extension18 within which to file their answer. The additional time prayed for was granted by the RTC. 19 However, instead of filing their answer, defendants prayed for a series of 15-day extensions in eight (8) successive motions for extensions on the same justification.20 The RTC again granted the additional time prayed for, but in granting the last extension, it warned against further extension.21 Despite the admonition, defendants again moved for another 15-day extension,22 which, this time, the RTC denied. No answer having been filed, plaintiffs moved to declare the defendants in default,23 which the RTC granted in its Order24 dated June 24, 1998. On June 25, 1998, defendants filed, via registered mail, their "Answer with Counterclaim and Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction." 25 On July 8, 1998, defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order of Default. 26 This was opposed by plaintiffs.27 In an Order28 dated July 14, 1998, the RTC denied defendants motion to set aside the order of default and ordered the reception of plaintiffs evidence ex parte. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration29 of the July 14, 1998 Order, which the RTC denied in its Order30 dated October 21, 1998. Defendants thereafter interposed an appeal to the CA assailing the Order declaring them in default, as well as the Order denying their motion to set aside the order of default, alleging that these were contrary to facts of the case, the law and jurisprudence. 31 On September 16, 1999, the appellate court issued a Resolution32 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the Orders

appealed from were interlocutory in character and, therefore, not appealable. No motion for reconsideration of the Order of the dismissal was filed by defendants. In the meantime, plaintiffs adduced ex parte their testimonial and documentary evidence. On April 17, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows: 1. Ordering the rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement as of the date of filing of this complaint; 2. Ordering the defendants to return possession, including all improvements therein, of the real estate property belonging to the plaintiffs which is described in, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10848 of the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City, and located in Barangay Anulin, City of Tagaytay; 3. Ordering the defendants to turn over all documents, records or papers that have been executed, prepared and retained in connection with any contract to sell or deed of sale of all lots/units sold during the effectivity of the joint venture agreement; 4. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P1,041,524.26 representing their share of the net income of the P2,603,810.64 as of September 30, 1995, as stipulated in the joint venture agreement; 5. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs attorneys fees in the amount of P104,152.40; 6. Ordering the defendants to pay the costs. SO ORDERED.33 The trial court anchored its decision on the following findings: x x x Evidence on record have shown patent violations by the defendants of the stipulations particularly paragraph II covering Developers (defendant) undertakings, as well as paragraph III and paragraph V of the JVA. These violations are not limited to those made against the plaintiffs alone as it appears that some of the unit buyers themselves have their own separate gripes against the defendants as typified by the letters (Exhibits "G" and "H") of Mr. Emmanuel Enciso. xxxx

Rummaging through the evidence presented in the course of the testimony of Mrs. Maminta on August 6, 1998 (Exhibits "N," "O," "P," "Q" and "R" as well as submarkings, pp. 60 to 62, TSN August 6, 1998) this court has observed, and is thus convinced, that a pattern of what appears to be a scheme or plot to reduce and eventually blot out the net income generated from sales of housing units by defendants, has been established. Exhibit "P-2" is explicit in declaring that, as of September 30, 1995, the joint venture project earned a net income of about P2,603,810.64. This amount, however, was drastically reduced in a subsequent financial report submitted by the defendants to P1,954,216.39. Shortly thereafter, and to the dismay of the plaintiffs, the defendants submitted an income statement and a balance sheet (Exhibits "R" and "R-1") indicating a net loss of P5,122,906.39 as of June 30, 1997. Of the reported net income of P2,603,810.64 (Exhibit "P-2") the plaintiffs should have received the sum of P1,041,524.26 representing their 40% share under paragraph II and V of the JVA. But this was not to be so. Even before the plaintiffs could get hold of their share as indicated above, the defendants closed the chance altogether by declaring a net loss. The court perceives this to be one calculated coup-de-grace that would put to thin air plaintiffs hope of getting their share in the profit under the JVA. That this matter had reached the court is no longer a cause for speculation. The way the defendants treated the JVA and the manner by which they handled the project itself vis--vis their partners, the plaintiffs herein, there is bound to be certain conflict as the latter repeatedly would received the losing end of the bargain. Under the intolerable circumstances, the plaintiffs could not have opted for some other recourse but to file the present action to enforce their rights. x x x34 On May 15, 2000, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal35 alleging defendants dilatory tactics for its allowance. This was opposed by defendants. 36 On May 22, 2000, the RTC resolved the motion for execution pending appeal in favor of plaintiffs.37 Upon posting a bond of P1,000,000.00 by plaintiffs, a writ of execution pending appeal was issued on June 20, 2000.38 Defendants appealed the decision to the CA on the following assignment of errors:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ISSUING A WRIT OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF GOOD AND COMPELLING REASONS TO JUSTIFY SAID ISSUANCE, AND DESPITE PRIMELINKS STRONG OPPOSITION THERETO. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO DECIDE PRIMELINKS MOTION TO QUASH THE WRIT OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL AND THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS RETAINED ITS JURISDICTION TO RULE ON ALL QUESTIONS RELATED TO EXECUTION. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RESCINDING THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT ALTHOUGH PRIMELINK HAS SUBSTANTIALLY DEVELOPED THE PROJECT AND HAS SPENT MORE OR LESS FORTY MILLION PESOS, AND DESPITE APPELLEES FAILURE TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING THE SAID RESCISSION. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THE APPELLEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE OVER THE SUBDIVISION AND TO APPROPRIATE FOR THEMSELVES ALL THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS INTRODUCED THEREIN BY PRIMELINK, ALTHOUGH SAID RIGHT WAS NEITHER ALLEGED NOR PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT, MUCH LESS PROVEN DURING THE EX PARTE HEARING, AND EVEN WITHOUT ORDERING APPELLEES TO FIRST REIMBURSE PRIMELINK OF THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET VALUE OF APPELLEES RAW, UNDEVELOPED AND UNPRODUCTIVE LAND (CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROJECT) AND THE SUM OF MORE OR LESS FORTY MILLION PESOS WHICH PRIMELINK HAD SPENT FOR THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, THEREBY ALLOWING APPELLEES TO UNJUSTLY ENRICH THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE OF PRIMELINK.39 The appeal was docketed in the CA as CA-G.R. CV No. 69200.

I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE WITHOUT FIRST REFERRING THE COMPLAINT FOR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION (RA NO. 876), CONTRARY TO THE MANDATED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION CLAUSE UNDER THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, AND THE DOCTRINE IN "MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION V. MCDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF FLORIDA" (19 SCRA 814-815). II On August 9, 2004, the appellate court rendered a decision affirming, with modification, the appealed decision. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, promulgated on April 17, 2000 in Civil Case No. TG-1776, is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10848 held for safekeeping by Chinabank pursuant to the Escrow Agreement is ordered released for return to the plaintiffs-appellees and conformably with the affirmed decision, the cancellation by the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City of whatever annotation in TCT No. 10848 by virtue of the Joint Venture Agreement, is now proper.

SO ORDERED.40 Citing the ruling of this Court in Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, 41 the appellate court ruled that, under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and is to be governed by the laws of partnership. The aggrieved parties filed a motion for reconsideration,42 which the CA denied in its Resolution43 dated March 7, 2005. Petitioners thus filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, alleging that: 1) DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMIT A FATAL AND REVERSIBLE LEGAL ERROR AND/OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE RETURN TO THE RESPONDENTS OF THE PROPERTY WITH ALL IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, EVEN WITHOUT ORDERING/REQUIRING THE RESPONDENTS TO FIRST PAY OR REIMBURSE PRIMELINK OF ALL EXPENSES INCURRED IN DEVELOPING AND MARKETING THE PROJECT, LESS THE ORIGINAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE SHARE DUE RESPONDENTS FROM THE PROFITS (IF ANY) OF THE JOINT VENTURE PROJECT? 2) IS THE AFORESAID ORDER ILLEGAL AND CONFISCATORY, OPPRESSIVE AND UNCONSCIONABLE, CONTRARY TO THE TENETS OF GOOD HUMAN RELATIONS AND VIOLATIVE OF EXISTING LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON JUDICIAL NOTICE, DEFAULT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRES MUTUAL RESTITUTION, NOT UNILATERAL APPROPRIATION, OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER?44 Petitioners maintain that the aforesaid portion of the decision which unconditionally awards to respondents "all improvements" on the project without requiring them to pay the value thereof or to reimburse Primelink for all expenses incurred therefore is inherently and essentially illegal and confiscatory, oppressive and unconscionable, contrary to the tenets of good human relations, and will allow respondents to unjustly enrich themselves at Primelinks expense. At the time respondents contributed the two parcels of land, consisting of 30,000 square meters to the joint venture project when the JVA was signed on March 10, 1994, the said properties were worth not more than P500.00 per square meter, the "price tag" agreed upon the parties for the purpose of the JVA. Moreover, before respondents rescinded the JVA sometime in October/November 1997, the property had already been substantially developed as improvements had already been introduced thereon; petitioners had likewise incurred administrative and marketing expenses, among others, amounting to more or less P40,000,000.00.45 Petitioners point out that respondents did not pray in their complaint that they be declared the owners and entitled to the possession of the improvements made by petitioner Primelink on the property; neither did they adduce evidence to prove their entitlement to said improvements. It follows, petitioners argue, that respondents were not entitled to the improvements although petitioner Primelink was declared in default.

They also aver that, under Article 1384 of the New Civil Code, rescission shall be only to the extent necessary to cover the damages caused and that, under Article 1385 of the same Code, rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were not object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be effected only when respondents can return whatever they may be obliged to return. Respondents who sought the rescission of the JVA must place petitioner Primelink in the status quo. They insist that respondents cannot rescind and, at the same time, retain the consideration, or part of the consideration received under the JVA. They cannot have the benefits of rescission without assuming its burden. All parties must be restored to their original positions as nearly as possible upon the rescission of a contract. In the event that restoration to the status quo is impossible, rescission may be granted if the Court can balance the equities and fashion an appropriate remedy that would be equitable to both parties and afford complete relief. Petitioners insist that being defaulted in the court a quo would in no way defeat their claim for reimbursement because "[w]hat matters is that the improvements exist and they cannot be denied."46 Moreover, they point out, the ruling of this Court in Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation47 cited by the CA is not in point. On the other hand, the CA ruled that although respondents therein (plaintiffs below) did not specifically pray for their takeover of the property and for the possession of the improvements on the parcels of land, nevertheless, respondents were entitled to said relief as a necessary consequence of the ruling of the trial court ordering the rescission of the JVA. The appellate court cited the ruling of this Court in the Aurbach case and Article 1838 of the New Civil Code, to wit: As a general rule, the relation of the parties in joint ventures is governed by their agreement. When the agreement is silent on any particular issue, the general principles of partnership may be resorted to.48 Respondents, for their part, assert that Articles 1380 to 1389 of the New Civil Code deal with rescissible contracts. What applies is Article 1191 of the New Civil Code, which reads: ART. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.

They insist that petitioners are not entitled to rescission for the improvements because, as found by the RTC and the CA, it was petitioner Primelink that enriched itself at the expense of respondents. Respondents reiterate the ruling of the CA, and argue as follows: PRIMELINK argued that the LAZATINs in their complaint did not allege, did not prove and did not pray that they are and should be entitled to take over the development of the project, and that the improvements and existing structures which were introduced by PRIMELINK after spending more or less Forty Million Pesos be awarded to them. They merely asked in the complaint that the joint venture agreement be rescinded, and that the parcels of land they contributed to the project be returned to them. PRIMELINKs argument lacks merit. The order of the court for PRIMELINK to return possession of the real estate property belonging to the LAZATINs including all improvements thereon was not a judgment that was different in kind than what was prayed for by the LAZATINs. The order to return the property with all the improvements thereon is just a necessary consequence to the order of rescission. As a general rule, the relation of the parties in joint ventures is governed by their agreement. When the agreement is silent on any particular issue, the general principles of partnership may be resorted to. In Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, the Supreme Court discussed the following points regarding joint ventures and partnership: The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition, but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. (Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) It is, in fact, hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since elements are similar community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. (Blackner v. McDermott, 176 F.2d 498 [1949]; Carboneau v. Peterson, 95 P.2d 1043 [1939]; Buckley v. Chadwick, 45 Cal.2d 183, 288 P.2d 12, 289 P.2d 242 [1955]) The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdictions is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. (Tuffs v. Mann, 116 Cal.App. 170, 2 P.2d 500 [1931]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 III. 595, 71 N.E.2d 74 [1947]; Gates v. Megargel, 266 Fed. 811 [1920]) This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. (Art. 1783, Civil Code). It would seem therefore that, under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should thus be governed by the laws of partnership. The Supreme Court has, however, recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may, however, engage in a joint venture with others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolanos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]; Campos and Lopez Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code 1981) (Emphasis Supplied) The LAZATINs were able to establish fraud on the part of PRIMELINK which, in the words of the court a quo, was a pattern of what appears to be a scheme or plot to reduce and eventually blot out the net incomes generated from sales of housing units by the defendants. Under Article 1838 of the Civil Code, where the partnership contract is rescinded on the ground of the fraud or misrepresentation of one of the parties thereto, the party entitled to

rescind is, without prejudice to any other right is entitled to a lien on, or right of retention of, the surplus of the partnership property after satisfying the partnership liabilities to third persons for any sum of money paid by him for the purchase of an interest in the partnership and for any capital or advance contributed by him. In the instant case, the joint venture still has outstanding liabilities to third parties or the buyers of the property. It is not amiss to state that title to the land or TCT No. T-10848 which is now held by Chinabank for safekeeping pursuant to the Escrow Agreement executed between Primelink Properties and Development Corporation and Ma. Clara T. Lazatin-Magat should also be returned to the LAZATINs as a necessary consequence of the order of rescission of contract. The reason for the existence of the Escrow Agreement has ceased to exist when the joint venture agreement was rescinded.49 Respondents stress that petitioners must bear any damages or losses they may have suffered. They likewise stress that they did not enrich themselves at the expense of petitioners. In reply, petitioners assert that it is unjust and inequitable for respondents to retain the improvements even if their share in the P1,041,524.26 of the net income of the property and the sale of the land were to be deducted from the value of the improvements, plus administrative and marketing expenses in the total amount of P40,000,000.00. Petitioners will still be entitled to an accounting from respondents. Respondents cannot deny the existence and nature of said improvements as they are visible to the naked eye. The threshold issues are the following: (1) whether respondents are entitled to the possession of the parcels of land covered by the JVA and the improvements thereon introduced by petitioners as their contribution to the JVA; (2) whether petitioners are entitled to reimbursement for the value of the improvements on the parcels of land. The petition has no merit. On the first issue, we agree with petitioners that respondents did not specifically pray in their complaint below that possession of the improvements on the parcels of land which they contributed to the JVA be transferred to them. Respondents made a specific prayer in their complaint that, upon the rescission of the JVA, they be placed in possession of the parcels of land subject of the agreement, and for other "reliefs and such other remedies as are just and equitable in the premises." However, the trial court was not precluded from awarding possession of the improvements on the parcels of land to respondents in its decision. Section 2(c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading shall specify the relief sought but it may add as general prayer for such further or other relief as may be deemed just and equitable. Even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.50 The court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for. 51 The prayer in the complaint for other reliefs equitable and just in the premises justifies the grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for.52 The trial court was not proscribed from placing respondents in possession of the parcels of land and the improvements on the said parcels of land. It bears stressing that the parcels of land, as

well as the improvements made thereon, were contributed by the parties to the joint venture under the JVA, hence, formed part of the assets of the joint venture. 53 The trial court declared that respondents were entitled to the possession not only of the parcels of land but also of the improvements thereon as a consequence of its finding that petitioners breached their agreement and defrauded respondents of the net income under the JVA. On the second issue, we agree with the CA ruling that petitioner Primelink and respondents entered into a joint venture as evidenced by their JVA which, under the Courts ruling in Aurbach, is a form of partnership, and as such is to be governed by the laws on partnership. When the RTC rescinded the JVA on complaint of respondents based on the evidence on record that petitioners willfully and persistently committed a breach of the JVA, the court thereby dissolved/cancelled the partnership.54 With the rescission of the JVA on account of petitioners fraudulent acts, all authority of any partner to act for the partnership is terminated except so far as may be necessary to wind up the partnership affairs or to complete transactions begun but not yet finished.55 On dissolution, the partnership is not terminated but continues until the winding up of partnership affairs is completed.56 Winding up means the administration of the assets of the partnership for the purpose of terminating the business and discharging the obligations of the partnership. The transfer of the possession of the parcels of land and the improvements thereon to respondents was only for a specific purpose: the winding up of partnership affairs, and the partition and distribution of the net partnership assets as provided by law.57 After all, Article 1836 of the New Civil Code provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties in their JVA, respondents have the right to wind up the partnership affairs: Art. 1836. Unless otherwise agreed, the partners who have not wrongfully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not insolvent, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs, provided, however, that any partner, his legal representative or his assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court. It must be stressed, too, that although respondents acquired possession of the lands and the improvements thereon, the said lands and improvements remained partnership property, subject to the rights and obligations of the parties, inter se, of the creditors and of third parties under Articles 1837 and 1838 of the New Civil Code, and subject to the outcome of the settlement of the accounts between the parties as provided in Article 1839 of the New Civil Code, absent any agreement of the parties in their JVA to the contrary. 58 Until the partnership accounts are determined, it cannot be ascertained how much any of the parties is entitled to, if at all. It was thus premature for petitioner Primelink to be demanding that it be indemnified for the value of the improvements on the parcels of land owned by the joint venture/partnership. Notably, the JVA of the parties does not contain any provision designating any party to wind up the affairs of the partnership. Thus, under Article 1837 of the New Civil Code, the rights of the parties when dissolution is caused in contravention of the partnership agreement are as follows:

(1) Each partner who has not caused dissolution wrongfully shall have: (a) All the rights specified in the first paragraph of this article, and (b) The right, as against each partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully, to damages for breach of the agreement. (2) The partners who have not caused the dissolution wrongfully, if they all desire to continue the business in the same name either by themselves or jointly with others, may do so, during the agreed term for the partnership and for that purpose may possess the partnership property, provided they secure the payment by bond approved by the court, or pay to any partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully, the value of his interest in the partnership at the dissolution, less any damages recoverable under the second paragraph, No. 1(b) of this article, and in like manner indemnify him against all present or future partnership liabilities. (3) A partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully shall have: (a) If the business is not continued under the provisions of the second paragraph, No. 2, all the rights of a partner under the first paragraph, subject to liability for damages in the second paragraph, No. 1(b), of this article. (b) If the business is continued under the second paragraph, No. 2, of this article, the right as against his co-partners and all claiming through them in respect of their interests in the partnership, to have the value of his interest in the partnership, less any damage caused to his co-partners by the dissolution, ascertained and paid to him in cash, or the payment secured by a bond approved by the court, and to be released from all existing liabilities of the partnership; but in ascertaining the value of the partners interest the value of the good-will of the business shall not be considered. And under Article 1838 of the New Civil Code, the party entitled to rescind is, without prejudice to any other right, entitled: (1) To a lien on, or right of retention of, the surplus of the partnership property after satisfying the partnership liabilities to third persons for any sum of money paid by him for the purchase of an interest in the partnership and for any capital or advances contributed by him; (2) To stand, after all liabilities to third persons have been satisfied, in the place of the creditors of the partnership for any payments made by him in respect of the partnership liabilities; and

(3) To be indemnified by the person guilty of the fraud or making the representation against all debts and liabilities of the partnership. The accounts between the parties after dissolution have to be settled as provided in Article 1839 of the New Civil Code: Art. 1839. In settling accounts between the partners after dissolution, the following rules shall be observed, subject to any agreement to the contrary: (1) The assets of the partnership are:

(8) When partnership property and the individual properties of the partners are in possession of a court for distribution, partnership creditors shall have priority on partnership property and separate creditors on individual property, saving the rights of lien or secured creditors. (9) Where a partner has become insolvent or his estate is insolvent, the claims against his separate property shall rank in the following order: (a) Those owing to separate creditors; (b) Those owing to partnership creditors;

(a) The partnership property, (c) Those owing to partners by way of contribution. (b) The contributions of the partners necessary for the payment of all the liabilities specified in No. 2. (2) The liabilities of the partnership shall rank in order of payment, as follows: (a) Those owing to creditors other than partners, (b) Those owing to partners other than for capital and profits, (c) Those owing to partners in respect of capital, (d) Those owing to partners in respect of profits. (3) The assets shall be applied in the order of their declaration in No. 1 of this article to the satisfaction of the liabilities. (4) The partners shall contribute, as provided by article 1797, the amount necessary to satisfy the liabilities. (5) An assignee for the benefit of creditors or any person appointed by the court shall have the right to enforce the contributions specified in the preceding number. (6) Any partner or his legal representative shall have the right to enforce the contributions specified in No. 4, to the extent of the amount which he has paid in excess of his share of the liability. (7) The individual property of a deceased partner shall be liable for the contributions specified in No. 4. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69200 are AFFIRMED insofar as they conform to this Decision of the Court Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 15574 September 17, 1919

SMITH, BELL & COMPANY (LTD.), petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN NATIVIDAD, Collector of Customs of the port of Cebu, respondent. Ross and Lawrence for petitioner. Attorney-General Paredes for respondent. MALCOLM, J.: A writ of mandamus is prayed for by Smith, Bell & Co. (Ltd.), against Joaquin Natividad, Collector of Customs of the port of Cebu, Philippine Islands, to compel him to issue a certificate of Philippine registry to the petitioner for its motor vessel Bato. The AttorneyGeneral, acting as counsel for respondent, demurs to the petition on the general ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. While the facts are thus admitted, and while, moreover, the pertinent provisions of law are clear and understandable, and interpretative American jurisprudence is found in abundance, yet the issue submitted is not lightly to be resolved. The question, flatly presented, is, whether Act. No. 2761 of the Philippine Legislature is valid or, more directly stated, whether the Government of the Philippine Islands, through its Legislature, can deny the registry of vessels in its coastwise trade to corporations having alien stockholders.

FACTS. Smith, Bell & Co., (Ltd.), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands. A majority of its stockholders are British subjects. It is the owner of a motor vessel known as the Bato built for it in the Philippine Islands in 1916, of more than fifteen tons gross The Bato was brought to Cebu in the present year for the purpose of transporting plaintiff's merchandise between ports in the Islands. Application was made at Cebu, the home port of the vessel, to the Collector of Customs for a certificate of Philippine registry. The Collector refused to issue the certificate, giving as his reason that all the stockholders of Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., were not citizens either of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. The instant action is the result. LAW. The Act of Congress of April 29, 1908, repealing the Shipping Act of April 30, 1906 but reenacting a portion of section 3 of this Law, and still in force, provides in its section 1: That until Congress shall have authorized the registry as vessels of the United States of vessels owned in the Philippine Islands, the Government of the Philippine Islands is hereby authorized to adopt, from time to time, and enforce regulations governing the transportation of merchandise and passengers between ports or places in the Philippine Archipelago. (35 Stat. at L., 70; Section 3912, U. S. Comp Stat. [1916]; 7 Pub. Laws, 364.) The Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, commonly known as the Jones Law, still in force, provides in section 3, (first paragraph, first sentence), 6, 7, 8, 10, and 31, as follows. SEC. 3. That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws. . . . SEC. 6. That the laws now in force in the Philippines shall continue in force and effect, except as altered, amended, or modified herein, until altered, amended, or repealed by the legislative authority herein provided or by Act of Congress of the United States. SEC. 7. That the legislative authority herein provided shall have power, when not inconsistent with this Act, by due enactment to amend, alter modify, or repeal any law, civil or criminal, continued in force by this Act as it may from time to time see fit This power shall specifically extend with the limitation herein provided as to the tariff to all laws relating to revenue provided as to the tariff to all laws relating to revenue and taxation in effect in the Philippines.

SEC. 8. That general legislative power, except as otherwise herein provided, is hereby granted to the Philippine Legislature, authorized by this Act. SEC. 10. That while this Act provides that the Philippine government shall have the authority to enact a tariff law the trade relations between the islands and the United States shall continue to be governed exclusively by laws of the Congress of the United States: Provided, That tariff acts or acts amendatory to the tariff of the Philippine Islands shall not become law until they shall receive the approval of the President of the United States, nor shall any act of the Philippine Legislature affecting immigration or the currency or coinage laws of the Philippines become a law until it has been approved by the President of the United States: Provided further, That the President shall approve or disapprove any act mentioned in the foregoing proviso within six months from and after its enactment and submission for his approval, and if not disapproved within such time it shall become a law the same as if it had been specifically approved. SEC. 31. That all laws or parts of laws applicable to the Philippines not in conflict with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby continued in force and effect." (39 Stat at L., 546.) On February 23, 1918, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2761. The first section of this law amended section 1172 of the Administrative Code to read as follows: SEC. 1172. Certificate of Philippine register. Upon registration of a vessel of domestic ownership, and of more than fifteen tons gross, a certificate of Philippine register shall be issued for it. If the vessel is of domestic ownership and of fifteen tons gross or less, the taking of the certificate of Philippine register shall be optional with the owner. "Domestic ownership," as used in this section, means ownership vested in some one or more of the following classes of persons: (a) Citizens or native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands; (b) citizens of the United States residing in the Philippine Islands; (c) any corporation or company composed wholly of citizens of the Philippine Islands or of the United States or of both, created under the laws of the United States, or of any State thereof, or of thereof, or the managing agent or master of the vessel resides in the Philippine Islands Any vessel of more than fifteen gross tons which on February eighth, nineteen hundred and eighteen, had a certificate of Philippine register under existing law, shall likewise be deemed a vessel of domestic ownership so long as there shall not be any change in the ownership thereof nor any transfer of stock of the companies or corporations owning such vessel to person not included under the last preceding paragraph. Sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 2761 amended sections 1176 and 1202 of the Administrative Code to read as follows:

SEC. 1176. Investigation into character of vessel. No application for a certificate of Philippine register shall be approved until the collector of customs is satisfied from an inspection of the vessel that it is engaged or destined to be engaged in legitimate trade and that it is of domestic ownership as such ownership is defined in section eleven hundred and seventy-two of this Code. The collector of customs may at any time inspect a vessel or examine its owner, master, crew, or passengers in order to ascertain whether the vessel is engaged in legitimate trade and is entitled to have or retain the certificate of Philippine register. SEC. 1202. Limiting number of foreign officers and engineers on board vessels. No Philippine vessel operating in the coastwise trade or on the high seas shall be permitted to have on board more than one master or one mate and one engineer who are not citizens of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, even if they hold licenses under section one thousand one hundred and ninety-nine hereof. No other person who is not a citizen of the United States or of the Philippine Islands shall be an officer or a member of the crew of such vessel. Any such vessel which fails to comply with the terms of this section shall be required to pay an additional tonnage tax of fifty centavos per net ton per month during the continuance of said failure. ISSUES. Predicated on these facts and provisions of law, the issues as above stated recur, namely, whether Act No 2761 of the Philippine Legislature is valid in whole or in part whether the Government of the Philippine Islands, through its Legislature, can deny the registry of vessel in its coastwise trade to corporations having alien stockholders . OPINION. 1. Considered from a positive standpoint, there can exist no measure of doubt as to the power of the Philippine Legislature to enact Act No. 2761. The Act of Congress of April 29, 1908, with its specific delegation of authority to the Government of the Philippine Islands to regulate the transportation of merchandise and passengers between ports or places therein, the liberal construction given to the provisions of the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, by the courts, and the grant by the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, of general legislative power to the Philippine Legislature, are certainly superabundant authority for such a law. While the Act of the local legislature may in a way be inconsistent with the Act of Congress regulating the coasting trade of the Continental United States, yet the general rule that only such laws of the United States have force in the Philippines as are expressly extended thereto, and the abnegation of power by Congress in favor of the Philippine Islands would leave no starting point for convincing argument. As a matter of fact, counsel for petitioner does not assail legislative action from this direction (See U. S. vs. Bull [1910], 15 Phil., 7; Sinnot vs. Davenport [1859] 22 How., 227.) 2. It is from the negative, prohibitory standpoint that counsel argues against the constitutionality of Act No. 2761. The first paragraph of the Philippine Bill of Rights of the Philippine Bill, repeated again in the first paragraph of the Philippine Bill of Rights as set forth

in the Jones Law, provides "That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws." Counsel says that Act No. 2761 denies to Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., the equal protection of the laws because it, in effect, prohibits the corporation from owning vessels, and because classification of corporations based on the citizenship of one or more of their stockholders is capricious, and that Act No. 2761 deprives the corporation of its properly without due process of law because by the passage of the law company was automatically deprived of every beneficial attribute of ownership in the Bato and left with the naked title to a boat it could not use . The guaranties extended by the Congress of the United States to the Philippine Islands have been used in the same sense as like provisions found in the United States Constitution. While the "due process of law and equal protection of the laws" clause of the Philippine Bill of Rights is couched in slightly different words than the corresponding clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the first should be interpreted and given the same force and effect as the latter. (Kepner vs. U.S. [1904], 195 U. S., 100; Sierra vs. Mortiga [1907], 204 U. S.,.470; U. S. vs. Bull [1910], 15 Phil., 7.) The meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment has been announced in classic decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Even at the expense of restating what is so well known, these basic principles must again be set down in order to serve as the basis of this decision. The guaranties of the Fourteenth Amendment and so of the first paragraph of the Philippine Bill of Rights, are universal in their application to all person within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color, or nationality. The word "person" includes aliens. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins [1886], 118 U. S., 356; Truax vs. Raich [1915], 239 U. S., 33.) Private corporations, likewise, are "persons" within the scope of the guaranties in so far as their property is concerned. (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pac. R. R. Co. [1886], 118.U. S., 394; Pembina Mining Co. vs. Pennsylvania [1888],.125 U. S., 181 Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. vs. Sandford [1896], 164 U. S., 578.) Classification with the end in view of providing diversity of treatment may be made among corporations, but must be based upon some reasonable ground and not be a mere arbitrary selection (Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. vs. Ellis [1897],.165 U. S., 150.) Examples of laws held unconstitutional because of unlawful discrimination against aliens could be cited. Generally, these decisions relate to statutes which had attempted arbitrarily to forbid aliens to engage in ordinary kinds of business to earn their living. (State vs. Montgomery [1900], 94 Maine, 192, peddling but see. Commonwealth vs. Hana [1907], 195 Mass., 262; Templar vs. Board of Examiners of Barbers [1902], 131 Mich., 254, barbers; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins [1886], 118 U. S.,.356, discrimination against Chinese; Truax vs. Raich [1915], 239 U. S., 33; In re Parrott [1880], 1 Fed , 481; Fraser vs. McConway & Torley Co. [1897], 82 Fed , 257; Juniata Limestone Co. vs. Fagley [1898], 187 Penn., 193, all relating to the employment of aliens by private corporations.) A literal application of general principles to the facts before us would, of course, cause the inevitable deduction that Act No. 2761 is unconstitutional by reason of its denial to a corporation, some of whole members are foreigners, of the equal protection of the laws. Like all beneficient propositions, deeper research discloses provisos. Examples of a denial of rights to aliens notwithstanding the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment could be cited. (Tragesser vs. Gray [1890], 73 Md., 250, licenses to sell spirituous liquors denied to persons not citizens of the United States; Commonwealth vs. Hana [1907], 195 Mass , 262, excluding aliens from the right to peddle; Patsone vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [1914], 232 U. S. ,

138, prohibiting the killing of any wild bird or animal by any unnaturalized foreign-born resident; Ex parte Gilleti [1915], 70 Fla., 442, discriminating in favor of citizens with reference to the taking for private use of the common property in fish and oysters found in the public waters of the State; Heim vs. McCall [1915], 239 U. S.,.175, and Crane vs. New York [1915], 239 U. S., 195, limiting employment on public works by, or for, the State or a municipality to citizens of the United States.) One of the exceptions to the general rule, most persistent and far reaching in influence is, that neither the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, broad and comprehensive as it is, nor any other amendment, "was designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed its `police power,' to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and legislate so as to increase the industries of the State, develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity. From the very necessities of society, legislation of a special character, having these objects in view, must often be had in certain districts." (Barbier vs. Connolly [1884], 113 U.S., 27; New Orleans Gas Co. vs. Lousiana Light Co. [1885], 115 U.S., 650.) This is the same police power which the United States Supreme Court say "extends to so dealing with the conditions which exist in the state as to bring out of them the greatest welfare in of its people." (Bacon vs. Walker [1907], 204 U.S., 311.) For quite similar reasons, none of the provision of the Philippine Organic Law could could have had the effect of denying to the Government of the Philippine Islands, acting through its Legislature, the right to exercise that most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers, the sovereign police power, in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. (U. S. vs. Toribio [1910], 15 Phil., 85; Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty [1915], 32 Phil., 580; Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro [1919], 39 Phil., 660.) Another notable exception permits of the regulation or distribution of the public domain or the common property or resources of the people of the State, so that use may be limited to its citizens. (Ex parte Gilleti [1915], 70 Fla., 442; McCready vs. Virginia [1876], 94 U. S., 391; Patsone vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [1914], 232U. S., 138.) Still another exception permits of the limitation of employment in the construction of public works by, or for, the State or a municipality to citizens of the United States or of the State. (Atkin vs. Kansas [1903],191 U. S., 207; Heim vs. McCall [1915], 239 U.S., 175; Crane vs. New York [1915], 239 U. S., 195.) Even as to classification, it is admitted that a State may classify with reference to the evil to be prevented; the question is a practical one, dependent upon experience. (Patsone vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [1914], 232 U. S., 138.) To justify that portion of Act no. 2761 which permits corporations or companies to obtain a certificate of Philippine registry only on condition that they be composed wholly of citizens of the Philippine Islands or of the United States or both, as not infringing Philippine Organic Law, it must be done under some one of the exceptions here mentioned This must be done, moreover, having particularly in mind what is so often of controlling effect in this jurisdiction our local experience and our peculiar local conditions. To recall a few facts in geography, within the confines of Philippine jurisdictional limits are found more than three thousand islands. Literally, and absolutely, steamship lines are, for an Insular territory thus situated, the arteries of commerce. If one be severed, the life-blood of the nation is lost. If on the other hand these arteries are protected, then the security of the country and the promotion of the general welfare is sustained. Time and again, with such conditions confronting it, has the executive branch of the Government of the Philippine Islands, always later with the sanction of the judicial branch, taken a firm stand with reference to the presence

of undesirable foreigners. The Government has thus assumed to act for the all-sufficient and primitive reason of the benefit and protection of its own citizens and of the self-preservation and integrity of its dominion. (In re Patterson [1902], 1 Phil., 93; Forbes vs. Chuoco, Tiaco and Crossfield [1910], 16 Phil., 534;.228 U.S., 549; In re McCulloch Dick [1918], 38 Phil., 41.) Boats owned by foreigners, particularly by such solid and reputable firms as the instant claimant, might indeed traverse the waters of the Philippines for ages without doing any particular harm. Again, some evilminded foreigner might very easily take advantage of such lavish hospitality to chart Philippine waters, to obtain valuable information for unfriendly foreign powers, to stir up insurrection, or to prejudice Filipino or American commerce. Moreover, under the Spanish portion of Philippine law, the waters within the domestic jurisdiction are deemed part of the national domain, open to public use. (Book II, Tit. IV, Ch. I, Civil Code; Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, arts 1, 2, 3.) Common carriers which in the Philippines as in the United States and other countries are, as Lord Hale said, "affected with a public interest," can only be permitted to use these public waters as a privilege and under such conditions as to the representatives of the people may seem wise. (See De Villata vs. Stanley [1915], 32 Phil., 541.) In Patsone vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ([1913], 232 U.S., 138), a case herein before mentioned, Justice Holmes delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court said: This statute makes it unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident to kill any wild bird or animal except in defense of person or property, and `to that end' makes it unlawful for such foreign-born person to own or be possessed of a shotgun or rifle; with a penalty of $25 and a forfeiture of the gun or guns. The plaintiff in error was found guilty and was sentenced to pay the abovementioned fine. The judgment was affirmed on successive appeals. (231 Pa., 46; 79 Atl., 928.) He brings the case to this court on the ground that the statute is contrary to the 14th Amendment and also is in contravention of the treaty between the United States and Italy, to which latter country the plaintiff in error belongs . Under the 14th Amendment the objection is twofold; unjustifiably depriving the alien of property, and discrimination against such aliens as a class. But the former really depends upon the latter, since it hardly can be disputed that if the lawful object, the protection of wild life (Geer vs. Connecticut, 161 U.S., 519; 40 L. ed., 793; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep., 600), warrants the discrimination, the, means adopted for making it effective also might be adopted. . . . The discrimination undoubtedly presents a more difficult question. But we start with reference to the evil to be prevented, and that if the class discriminated against is or reasonably might be considered to define those from whom the evil mainly is to be feared, it properly may be picked out. A lack of abstract symmetry does not matter. The question is a practical one, dependent upon experience. . . . The question therefore narrows itself to whether this court can say that the legislature of Pennsylvania was not warranted in assuming as its premise for the law that resident unnaturalized aliens were the peculiar source of the evil that it desired to prevent. (Barrett vs. Indiana,. 229 U.S., 26, 29; 57 L. ed., 1050, 1052; 33 Sup. Ct. Rep., 692.)

Obviously the question, so stated, is one of local experience, on which this court ought to be very slow to declare that the state legislature was wrong in its facts (Adams vs. Milwaukee, 228 U.S., 572, 583; 57 L. ed., 971,.977; 33 Sup. Ct. Rep., 610.) If we might trust popular speech in some states it was right; but it is enough that this court has no such knowledge of local conditions as to be able to say that it was manifestly wrong. . . . Judgment affirmed. We are inclined to the view that while Smith, Bell & Co. Ltd., a corporation having alien stockholders, is entitled to the protection afforded by the due-process of law and equal protection of the laws clause of the Philippine Bill of Rights, nevertheless, Act No. 2761 of the Philippine Legislature, in denying to corporations such as Smith, Bell &. Co. Ltd., the right to register vessels in the Philippines coastwise trade, does not belong to that vicious species of class legislation which must always be condemned, but does fall within authorized exceptions, notably, within the purview of the police power, and so does not offend against the constitutional provision. This opinion might well be brought to a close at this point. It occurs to us, however, that the legislative history of the United States and the Philippine Islands, and, probably, the legislative history of other countries, if we were to take the time to search it out, might disclose similar attempts at restriction on the right to enter the coastwise trade, and might thus furnish valuable aid by which to ascertain and, if possible, effectuate legislative intention. 3. The power to regulate commerce, expressly delegated to the Congress by the Constitution, includes the power to nationalize ships built and owned in the United States by registries and enrollments, and the recording of the muniments of title of American vessels. The Congress "may encourage or it may entirely prohibit such commerce, and it may regulate in any way it may see fit between these two extremes." (U.S. vs. Craig [1886], 28 Fed., 795; Gibbons vs. Ogden [1824], 9 Wheat., 1; The Passenger Cases [1849], 7 How., 283.) Acting within the purview of such power, the first Congress of the United States had not been long convened before it enacted on September 1, 1789, "An Act for Registering and Clearing Vessels, Regulating the Coasting Trade, and for other purposes." Section 1 of this law provided that for any ship or vessel to obtain the benefits of American registry, it must belong wholly to a citizen or citizens of the United States "and no other." (1 Stat. at L., 55.) That Act was shortly after repealed, but the same idea was carried into the Acts of Congress of December 31, 1792 and February 18, 1793. (1 Stat. at L., 287, 305.).Section 4 of the Act of 1792 provided that in order to obtain the registry of any vessel, an oath shall be taken and subscribed by the owner, or by one of the owners thereof, before the officer authorized to make such registry, declaring, "that there is no subject or citizen of any foreign prince or state, directly or indirectly, by way of trust, confidence, or otherwise, interested in such vessel, or in the profits or issues thereof." Section 32 of the Act of 1793 even went so far as to say "that if any licensed ship or vessel shall be transferred to any person who is not at the time of such transfer a citizen of and resident within the United States, ... every such vessel with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and the cargo found on board her, shall be forefeited." In case of alienation to a foreigner, Chief Justice Marshall said that all the privileges of an American bottom were ipso facto

forfeited. (U.S. vs. Willings and Francis [1807], 4 Cranch, 48.) Even as late as 1873, the Attorney-General of the United States was of the opinion that under the provisions of the Act of December 31, 1792, no vessel in which a foreigner is directly or indirectly interested can lawfully be registered as a vessel of the United. States. (14 Op. Atty.-Gen. [U.S.], 340.) These laws continued in force without contest, although possibly the Act of March 3, 1825, may have affected them, until amended by the Act of May 28, 1896 (29 Stat. at L., 188) which extended the privileges of registry from vessels wholly owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States to corporations created under the laws of any of the states thereof. The law, as amended, made possible the deduction that a vessel belonging to a domestic corporation was entitled to registry or enrollment even though some stock of the company be owned by aliens. The right of ownership of stock in a corporation was thereafter distinct from the right to hold the property by the corporation (Humphreys vs. McKissock [1890], 140 U.S., 304; Queen vs. Arnaud [1846], 9 Q. B., 806; 29 Op. Atty.-Gen. [U.S.],188.) On American occupation of the Philippines, the new government found a substantive law in operation in the Islands with a civil law history which it wisely continued in force Article fifteen of the Spanish Code of Commerce permitted any foreigner to engage in Philippine trade if he had legal capacity to do so under the laws of his nation. When the Philippine Commission came to enact the Customs Administrative Act (No. 355) in 1902, it returned to the old American policy of limiting the protection and flag of the United States to vessels owned by citizens of the United States or by native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands (Sec. 117.) Two years later, the same body reverted to the existing Congressional law by permitting certification to be issued to a citizen of the United States or to a corporation or company created under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof or of the Philippine Islands (Act No. 1235, sec. 3.) The two administration codes repeated the same provisions with the necessary amplification of inclusion of citizens or native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands (Adm. Code of 1916, sec. 1345; Adm. Code of 1917, sec. 1172). And now Act No. 2761 has returned to the restrictive idea of the original Customs Administrative Act which in turn was merely a reflection of the statutory language of the first American Congress. Provisions such as those in Act No. 2761, which deny to foreigners the right to a certificate of Philippine registry, are thus found not to be as radical as a first reading would make them appear. Without any subterfuge, the apparent purpose of the Philippine Legislature is seen to be to enact an anti-alien shipping act. The ultimate purpose of the Legislature is to encourage Philippine ship-building. This, without doubt, has, likewise, been the intention of the United States Congress in passing navigation or tariff laws on different occasions. The object of such a law, the United States Supreme Court once said, was to encourage American trade, navigation, and ship-building by giving American ship-owners exclusive privileges. (Old Dominion Steamship Co. vs. Virginia [1905], 198 U.S., 299; Kent's Commentaries, Vol. 3, p. 139.) In the concurring opinion of Justice Johnson in Gibbons vs. Ogden ([1824], 9 Wheat., 1) is found the following:

Licensing acts, in fact, in legislation, are universally restraining acts; as, for example, acts licensing gaming houses, retailers of spirituous liquors, etc. The act, in this instance, is distinctly of that character, and forms part of an extensive system, the object of which is to encourage American shipping, and place them on an equal footing with the shipping of other nations. Almost every commercial nation reserves to its own subjects a monopoly of its coasting trade; and a countervailing privilege in favor of American shipping is contemplated, in the whole legislation of the United States on this subject. It is not to give the vessel an American character, that the license is granted; that effect has been correctly attributed to the act of her enrollment. But it is to confer on her American privileges, as contradistinguished from foreign; and to preserve the. Government from fraud by foreigners, in surreptitiously intruding themselves into the American commercial marine, as well as frauds upon the revenue in the trade coastwise, that this whole system is projected. The United States Congress in assuming its grave responsibility of legislating wisely for a new country did so imbued with a spirit of Americanism. Domestic navigation and trade, it decreed, could only be carried on by citizens of the United States. If the representatives of the American people acted in this patriotic manner to advance the national policy, and if their action was accepted without protest in the courts, who can say that they did not enact such beneficial laws under the all-pervading police power, with the prime motive of safeguarding the country and of promoting its prosperity? Quite similarly, the Philippine Legislature made up entirely of Filipinos, representing the mandate of the Filipino people and the guardian of their rights, acting under practically autonomous powers, and imbued with a strong sense of Philippinism, has desired for these Islands safety from foreign interlopers, the use of the common property exclusively by its citizens and the citizens of the United States, and protection for the common good of the people. Who can say, therefore, especially can a court, that with all the facts and circumstances affecting the Filipino people before it, the Philippine Legislature has erred in the enactment of Act No. 2761? Surely, the members of the judiciary are not expected to live apart from active life, in monastic seclusion amidst dusty tomes and ancient records, but, as keen spectators of passing events and alive to the dictates of the general the national welfare, can incline the scales of their decisions in favor of that solution which will most effectively promote the public policy. All the presumption is in favor of the constitutionally of the law and without good and strong reasons, courts should not attempt to nullify the action of the Legislature. "In construing a statute enacted by the Philippine Commission (Legislature), we deem it our duty not to give it a construction which would be repugnant to an Act of Congress, if the language of the statute is fairly susceptible of another construction not in conflict with the higher law." (In re Guaria [1913], 24. Phil., 36; U.S. vs. Ten Yu [1912], 24 Phil., 1.) That is the true construction which will best carry legislative intention into effect. With full consciousness of the importance of the question, we nevertheless are clearly of the opinion that the limitation of domestic ownership for purposes of obtaining a certificate of Philippine registry in the coastwise trade to citizens of the Philippine Islands, and to citizens of the United States, does not violate the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916 No treaty right relied upon Act No. 2761 of the Philippine Legislature is held valid and constitutional .

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered. G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967

HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL BECK, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his capacity as Acting Director, National Bureau of Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PEDRO D. CENZON, EFREN I. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL, JR. and ASST. FISCAL MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE AMADO ROAN, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE ROMAN CANSINO, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch, and JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of Quezon City, respondents. Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno and Meer, Meer and Meer and Juan T. David for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero, Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason and Solicitor C. Padua for respondents. CONCEPCION, C.J.: Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin1 hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Prosecutors several judges2 hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges issued, on different dates,3 a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein4 and/or the corporations of which they were officers,5 directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense," or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense," which is described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code." Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court because, inter alia: (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized; (2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized; (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the

aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them; (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and (5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law on March 20, 1962, said petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction, and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining RespondentsProsecutors, their agents and /or representatives from using the effects seized as aforementioned or any copies thereof, in the deportation cases already adverted to, and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be rendered quashing the contested search warrants and declaring the same null and void, and commanding the respondents, their agents or representatives to return to petitioners herein, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 67, of the Rules of Court, the documents, papers, things and cash moneys seized or confiscated under the search warrants in question. In their answer, respondents-prosecutors alleged, 6 (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners' consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures. On March 22, 1962, this Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the petition. However, by resolution dated June 29, 1962, the writ was partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and things seized from the offices of the corporations above mentioned are concerned; but, the injunction was maintained as regards the papers, documents and things found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein. 7 Thus, the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into two (2) major groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein. As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be. 8 Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby,9 and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. 10 Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. 11 Indeed, it has been held: . . . that the Government's action in gaining possession of papers belonging to the corporation did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants. If these papers were unlawfully seized and thereby the constitutional rights of or any one

were invaded, they were the rights of the corporation and not the rights of the other defendants. Next, it is clear that a question of the lawfulness of a seizure can be raised only by one whose rights have been invaded. Certainly, such a seizure, if unlawful, could not affect the constitutional rights of defendants whose property had not been seized or the privacy of whose homes had not been disturbed ; nor could they claim for themselves the benefits of the Fourth Amendment, when its violation, if any, was with reference to the rights of another. Remus vs. United States (C.C.A.)291 F. 501, 511. It follows, therefore, that the question of the admissibility of the evidence based on an alleged unlawful search and seizure does not extend to the personal defendants but embraces only the corporation whose property was taken. . . . (A Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. vs. United States, [1925] 3 F. 2d. 786, 789, Emphasis supplied.) With respect to the documents, papers and things seized in the residences of petitioners herein, the aforementioned resolution of June 29, 1962, lifted the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by this Court, 12 thereby, in effect, restraining herein RespondentsProsecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners herein. In connection with said documents, papers and things, two (2) important questions need be settled, namely: (1) whether the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made under the authority thereof, are valid or not, and (2) if the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, whether said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners herein.1wph1.t Petitioners maintain that the aforementioned search warrants are in the nature of general warrants and that accordingly, the seizures effected upon the authority there of are null and void. In this connection, the Constitution 13 provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that

the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code," as alleged in the aforementioned applications without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion of peace officers. This is precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision above quoted to outlaw the so-called general warrants. It is not difficult to imagine what would happen, in times of keen political strife, when the party in power feels that the minority is likely to wrest it, even though by legal means. Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court 14 by providing in its counterpart, under the Revised Rules of Court 15 that "a search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense." Not satisfied with this qualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that "no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense." The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants was compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and seized, to wit: Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements. Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants. Relying upon Moncado vs. People's Court (80 Phil. 1), Respondents-Prosecutors maintain that, even if the searches and seizures under consideration were unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus seized are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein. Upon mature deliberation, however, we are unanimously of the opinion that the position taken in the Moncado case must be abandoned. Said position was in line with the American common law rule, that the criminal should not be allowed to go free merely "because the constable has blundered," 16 upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by means other than the exclusion of evidence unlawfully obtained, 17

such as the common-law action for damages against the searching officer, against the party who procured the issuance of the search warrant and against those assisting in the execution of an illegal search, their criminal punishment, resistance, without liability to an unlawful seizure, and such other legal remedies as may be provided by other laws. However, most common law jurisdictions have already given up this approach and eventually adopted the exclusionary rule, realizing that this is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the language of Judge Learned Hand: As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of evidence competent as such, which has been unlawfully acquired, is that exclusion is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional privilege. In earlier times the action of trespass against the offending official may have been protection enough; but that is true no longer. Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be repressed.18 In fact, over thirty (30) years before, the Federal Supreme Court had already declared: If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his rights to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.19 This view was, not only reiterated, but, also, broadened in subsequent decisions on the same Federal Court. 20 After reviewing previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in Mapp vs. Ohio (supra.): . . . Today we once again examine the Wolf's constitutional documentation of the right of privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion, and after its dozen years on our books, are led by it to close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a State. Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as it used against the Federal Government. Were it otherwise, then just as without the Weeks rule the assurance against unreasonable federal searches and seizures would be "a form of words," valueless and underserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule the freedom from state invasions of

privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to permit this Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." At the time that the Court held in Wolf that the amendment was applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause, the cases of this Court as we have seen, had steadfastly held that as to federal officers the Fourth Amendment included the exclusion of the evidence seized in violation of its provisions. Even Wolf "stoutly adhered" to that proposition. The right to when conceded operatively enforceable against the States, was not susceptible of destruction by avulsion of the sanction upon which its protection and enjoyment had always been deemed dependent under the Boyd, Weeks and Silverthorne Cases. Therefore, in extending the substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches state or federal it was logically and constitutionally necessarily that the exclusion doctrine an essential part of the right to privacy be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right newly recognized by the Wolf Case. In short, the admission of the new constitutional Right by Wolf could not tolerate denial of its most important constitutional privilege, namely, the exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure. To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment. Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule to "is to deter to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way by removing the incentive to disregard it" . . . . The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest. Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured by its Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment. Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice. (emphasis ours.) Indeed, the non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. To be sure, if the applicant for a search warrant has competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party against whom the warrant is intended, then there is no reason why the applicant should not comply with the requirements of the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the Judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only possible explanation (not justification) for its issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. But, then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause.

Moreover, the theory that the criminal prosecution of those who secure an illegal search warrant and/or make unreasonable searches or seizures would suffice to protect the constitutional guarantee under consideration, overlooks the fact that violations thereof are, in general, committed By agents of the party in power, for, certainly, those belonging to the minority could not possibly abuse a power they do not have. Regardless of the handicap under which the minority usually but, understandably finds itself in prosecuting agents of the majority, one must not lose sight of the fact that the psychological and moral effect of the possibility 21 of securing their conviction, is watered down by the pardoning power of the party for whose benefit the illegality had been committed. In their Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of the Resolution of this Court dated June 29, 1962, petitioners allege that Rooms Nos. 81 and 91 of Carmen Apartments, House No. 2008, Dewey Boulevard, House No. 1436, Colorado Street, and Room No. 304 of the ArmyNavy Club, should be included among the premises considered in said Resolution as residences of herein petitioners, Harry S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brook, John J. Brooks and Karl Beck, respectively, and that, furthermore, the records, papers and other effects seized in the offices of the corporations above referred to include personal belongings of said petitioners and other effects under their exclusive possession and control, for the exclusion of which they have a standing under the latest rulings of the federal courts of federal courts of the United States. 22 We note, however, that petitioners' theory, regarding their alleged possession of and control over the aforementioned records, papers and effects, and the alleged "personal" nature thereof, has Been Advanced, not in their petition or amended petition herein, but in the Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of the Resolution of June 29, 1962. In other words, said theory would appear to be readjustment of that followed in said petitions, to suit the approach intimated in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered and amended. Then, too, some of the affidavits or copies of alleged affidavits attached to said motion for reconsideration, or submitted in support thereof, contain either inconsistent allegations, or allegations inconsistent with the theory now advanced by petitioners herein. Upon the other hand, we are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion for reconsideration, and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in support of said motion, have sufficiently established the facts or conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the petitioners; to warrant application of the views therein expressed, should we agree thereto. At any rate, we do not deem it necessary to express our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future. We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned; that the warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of June 29, 1962, are null and void; that the searches and seizures therein made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued, in connection with the documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said residences of herein petitioners is hereby made permanent; that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers and other effects so seized in the aforementioned residences are concerned; that the aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and Amendment should be, as it is hereby, denied; and that the petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for denied, as regards the

documents, papers and other effects seized in the twenty-nine (29) places, offices and other premises enumerated in the same Resolution, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur. CASTRO, J., concurring and dissenting: From my analysis of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and from the import of the deliberations of the Court on this case, I gather the following distinct conclusions: 1. All the search warrants served by the National Bureau of Investigation in this case are general warrants and are therefore proscribed by, and in violation of, paragraph 3 of section 1 of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution; 2. All the searches and seizures conducted under the authority of the said search warrants were consequently illegal; 3. The non-exclusionary rule enunciated in Moncado vs. People, 80 Phil. 1, should be, and is declared, abandoned; 4. The search warrants served at the three residences of the petitioners are expressly declared null and void the searches and seizures therein made are expressly declared illegal; and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued against the use of the documents, papers and effect seized in the said residences is made permanent; and 5. Reasoning that the petitioners have not in their pleadings satisfactorily demonstrated that they have legal standing to move for the suppression of the documents, papers and effects seized in the places other than the three residences adverted to above, the opinion written by the Chief Justice refrains from expressly declaring as null and void the such warrants served at such other places and as illegal the searches and seizures made therein, and leaves "the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future." It is precisely the position taken by the Chief Justice summarized in the immediately preceding paragraph (numbered 5) with which I am not in accord. I do not share his reluctance or unwillingness to expressly declare, at this time, the nullity of the search warrants served at places other than the three residences, and the illegibility of the searches and seizures conducted under the authority thereof. In my view even the exacerbating passions and prejudices inordinately generated by the environmental political and moral developments of this case should not deter this Court from forthrightly laying down the law not

only for this case but as well for future cases and future generations. All the search warrants, without exception, in this case are admittedly general, blanket and roving warrants and are therefore admittedly and indisputably outlawed by the Constitution; and the searches and seizures made were therefore unlawful. That the petitioners, let us assume in gratia argumente, have no legal standing to ask for the suppression of the papers, things and effects seized from places other than their residences, to my mind, cannot in any manner affect, alter or otherwise modify the intrinsic nullity of the search warrants and the intrinsic illegality of the searches and seizures made thereunder. Whether or not the petitioners possess legal standing the said warrants are void and remain void, and the searches and seizures were illegal and remain illegal. No inference can be drawn from the words of the Constitution that "legal standing" or the lack of it is a determinant of the nullity or validity of a search warrant or of the lawfulness or illegality of a search or seizure. On the question of legal standing, I am of the conviction that, upon the pleadings submitted to this Court the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to move for the suppression and return of the documents, papers and effects that were seized from places other than their family residences. Our constitutional provision on searches and seizures was derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the many years of judicial construction and interpretation of the said constitutional provision, our courts have invariably regarded as doctrinal the pronouncement made on the Fourth Amendment by federal courts, especially the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. The U.S. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing to move for the suppression or return of documents, papers and effects which are the fruits of an unlawful search and seizure, may be summarized as follows; (a) ownership of documents, papers and effects gives "standing;" (b) ownership and/or control or possession actual or constructive of premises searched gives "standing"; and (c) the "aggrieved person" doctrine where the search warrant and the sworn application for search warrant are "primarily" directed solely and exclusively against the "aggrieved person," gives "standing." An examination of the search warrants in this case will readily show that, excepting three, all were directed against the petitioners personally. In some of them, the petitioners were named personally, followed by the designation, "the President and/or General Manager" of the particular corporation. The three warrants excepted named three corporate defendants. But the "office/house/warehouse/premises" mentioned in the said three warrants were also the same "office/house/warehouse/premises" declared to be owned by or under the control of the petitioners in all the other search warrants directed against the petitioners and/or "the President and/or General Manager" of the particular corporation. (see pages 5-24 of Petitioners' Reply of April 2, 1962). The searches and seizures were to be made, and were actually made, in the "office/house/warehouse/premises" owned by or under the control of the petitioners. Ownership of matters seized gives "standing." Ownership of the properties seized alone entitles the petitioners to bring a motion to return and suppress, and gives them standing as persons aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure

regardless of their location at the time of seizure. Jones vs. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 261 (1960) (narcotics stored in the apartment of a friend of the defendant); Henzel vs. United States, 296 F. 2d. 650, 652-53 (5th Cir. 1961), (personal and corporate papers of corporation of which the defendant was president), United States vs. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48 (1951) (narcotics seized in an apartment not belonging to the defendant); Pielow vs. United States, 8 F. 2d 492, 493 (9th Cir. 1925) (books seized from the defendant's sister but belonging to the defendant); Cf. Villano vs. United States, 310 F. 2d 680, 683 (10th Cir. 1962) (papers seized in desk neither owned by nor in exclusive possession of the defendant). In a very recent case (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 12, 1966), it was held that under the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and seizures, a person places himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area, be it his home or his office, his hotel room or his automobile: Where the argument falls is in its misapprehension of the fundamental nature and scope of Fourth Amendment protection. What the Fourth Amendment protects is the security a man relies upon when he places himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area, be it his home or his office, his hotel room or his automobile. There he is protected from unwarranted governmental intrusion. And when he puts some thing in his filing cabinet, in his desk drawer, or in his pocket, he has the right to know it will be secure from an unreasonable search or an unreasonable seizure. So it was that the Fourth Amendment could not tolerate the warrantless search of the hotel room in Jeffers, the purloining of the petitioner's private papers in Gouled, or the surreptitious electronic surveilance in Silverman. Countless other cases which have come to this Court over the years have involved a myriad of differing factual contexts in which the protections of the Fourth Amendment have been appropriately invoked. No doubt, the future will bring countless others. By nothing we say here do we either foresee or foreclose factual situations to which the Fourth Amendment may be applicable. (Hoffa vs. U.S., 87 S. Ct. 408 (December 12, 1966). See also U.S. vs. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S. Ct. 93 (November 13, 1951). (Emphasis supplied). Control of premises searched gives "standing." Independent of ownership or other personal interest in the records and documents seized, the petitioners have standing to move for return and suppression by virtue of their proprietary or leasehold interest in many of the premises searched. These proprietary and leasehold interests have been sufficiently set forth in their motion for reconsideration and need not be recounted here, except to emphasize that the petitioners paid rent, directly or indirectly, for practically all the premises searched (Room 91, 84 Carmen Apts; Room 304, Army & Navy Club; Premises 2008, Dewey Boulevard; 1436 Colorado Street); maintained personal offices within the corporate offices (IBMC, USTC); had made improvements or furnished such offices; or had paid for the filing cabinets in which the papers were stored (Room 204, Army & Navy Club); and individually, or through their respective spouses, owned the controlling stock of the corporations involved. The petitioners' proprietary interest in most, if not all, of the premises searched therefore independently gives them standing to move for the return and suppression of the books, papers and affects seized therefrom.

In Jones vs. United States, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court delineated the nature and extent of the interest in the searched premises necessary to maintain a motion to suppress. After reviewing what it considered to be the unduly technical standard of the then prevailing circuit court decisions, the Supreme Court said (362 U.S. 266): We do not lightly depart from this course of decisions by the lower courts. We are persuaded, however, that it is unnecessarily and ill-advised to import into the law surrounding the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures subtle distinctions, developed and refined by the common law in evolving the body of private property law which, more than almost any other branch of law, has been shaped by distinctions whose validity is largely historical. Even in the area from which they derive, due consideration has led to the discarding of those distinctions in the homeland of the common law. See Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957, 5 and 6 Eliz. 2, c. 31, carrying out Law Reform Committee, Third Report, Cmd. 9305. Distinctions such as those between "lessee", "licensee," "invitee," "guest," often only of gossamer strength, ought not be determinative in fashioning procedures ultimately referable to constitutional safeguards. See also Chapman vs. United States, 354 U.S. 610, 616-17 (1961). It has never been held that a person with requisite interest in the premises searched must own the property seized in order to have standing in a motion to return and suppress. In Alioto vs. United States, 216 F. Supp. 48 (1963), a Bookkeeper for several corporations from whose apartment the corporate records were seized successfully moved for their return. In United States vs. Antonelli, Fireworks Co., 53 F. Supp. 870, 873 (W D. N. Y. 1943), the corporation's president successfully moved for the return and suppression is to him of both personal and corporate documents seized from his home during the course of an illegal search: The lawful possession by Antonelli of documents and property, "either his own or the corporation's was entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Under the circumstances in the case at bar, the search and seizure were unreasonable and unlawful. The motion for the return of seized article and the suppression of the evidence so obtained should be granted. (Emphasis supplied). Time was when only a person who had property in interest in either the place searched or the articles seize had the necessary standing to invoke the protection of the exclusionary rule. But in MacDonald vs. Unite States, 335 U.S. 461 (1948), Justice Robert Jackson joined by Justice Felix Frankfurter, advanced the view that "even a guest may expect the shelter of the rooftree he is under against criminal intrusion." This view finally became the official view of the U.S. Supreme Court and was articulated in United States vs. Jeffers, 432 U.S 48 (1951). Nine years later, in 1960, in Jones vs. Unite States, 362 U.S. 257, 267, the U.S. Supreme Court went a step further. Jones was a mere guest in the apartment unlawfully searched but the Court nonetheless declared that the exclusionary rule protected him as well. The concept of "person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure" was enlarged to include "anyone legitimately on premise where the search occurs." Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's Jones decision the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant organizer, sole stockholder and president of a corporation had standing in a mail fraud prosecution against him to demand the return and suppression of

corporate property. Henzel vs. United States, 296 F 2d 650, 652 (5th Cir. 1961), supra. The court conclude that the defendant had standing on two independent grounds: First he had a sufficient interest in the property seized, and second he had an adequate interest in the premises searched (just like in the case at bar). A postal inspector had unlawfully searched the corporation' premises and had seized most of the corporation's book and records. Looking to Jones, the court observed: Jones clearly tells us, therefore, what is not required qualify one as a "person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure." It tells us that appellant should not have been precluded from objecting to the Postal Inspector's search and seizure of the corporation's books and records merely because the appellant did not show ownership or possession of the books and records or a substantial possessory interest in the invade premises . . . (Henzel vs. United States, 296 F. 2d at 651). . Henzel was soon followed by Villano vs. United States, 310 F. 2d 680, 683, (10th Cir. 1962). In Villano, police officers seized two notebooks from a desk in the defendant's place of employment; the defendant did not claim ownership of either; he asserted that several employees (including himself) used the notebooks. The Court held that the employee had a protected interest and that there also was an invasion of privacy. Both Henzel and Villano considered also the fact that the search and seizure were "directed at" the moving defendant. Henzel vs. United States, 296 F. 2d at 682; Villano vs. United States, 310 F. 2d at 683. In a case in which an attorney closed his law office, placed his files in storage and went to Puerto Rico, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized his standing to move to quash as unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution a grand jury subpoena duces tecum directed to the custodian of his files. The Government contended that the petitioner had no standing because the books and papers were physically in the possession of the custodian, and because the subpoena was directed against the custodian. The court rejected the contention, holding that Schwimmer legally had such possession, control and unrelinquished personal rights in the books and papers as not to enable the question of unreasonable search and seizure to be escaped through the mere procedural device of compelling a thirdparty naked possessor to produce and deliver them. Schwimmer vs. United States, 232 F. 2d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 1956). Aggrieved person doctrine where the search warrant s primarily directed against said person gives "standing." The latest United States decision squarely in point is United States vs. Birrell, 242 F. Supp. 191 (1965, U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.). The defendant had stored with an attorney certain files and papers, which attorney, by the name of Dunn, was not, at the time of the seizing of the records, Birrell's attorney. * Dunn, in turn, had stored most of the records at his home in the country and on a farm which, according to Dunn's affidavit, was under his (Dunn's) "control and management." The papers turned out to be private, personal and business papers together with corporate books and records of certain unnamed corporations in which Birrell did not even claim ownership. (All of these type records were seized in the case at bar). Nevertheless, the

search in Birrell was held invalid by the court which held that even though Birrell did not own the premises where the records were stored, he had "standing" to move for the return of all the papers and properties seized. The court, relying on Jones vs. U.S., supra; U.S. vs. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 53 F. Supp. 870, Aff'd 155 F. 2d 631: Henzel vs. U.S., supra; and Schwimmer vs. U.S., supra, pointed out that It is overwhelmingly established that the searches here in question were directed solely and exclusively against Birrell. The only person suggested in the papers as having violated the law was Birrell. The first search warrant described the records as having been used "in committing a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341, by the use of the mails by one Lowell M. Birrell, . . ." The second search warrant was captioned: "United States of America vs. Lowell M. Birrell. (p. 198) Possession (actual or constructive), no less than ownership, gives standing to move to suppress. Such was the rule even before Jones. (p. 199) If, as thus indicated Birrell had at least constructive possession of the records stored with Dunn, it matters not whether he had any interest in the premises searched. See also Jeffers v. United States, 88 U.S. Appl. D.C. 58, 187 F. 2d 498 (1950), affirmed 432 U.S. 48, 72 S. Ct. 93, 96 L. Ed. 459 (1951). The ruling in the Birrell case was reaffirmed on motion for reargument; the United States did not appeal from this decision. The factual situation in Birrell is strikingly similar to the case of the present petitioners; as in Birrell, many personal and corporate papers were seized from premises not petitioners' family residences; as in Birrell, the searches were "PRIMARILY DIRECTED SOLETY AND EXCLUSIVELY" against the petitioners. Still both types of documents were suppressed in Birrell because of the illegal search. In the case at bar, the petitioners connection with the premises raided is much closer than in Birrell. Thus, the petitioners have full standing to move for the quashing of all the warrants regardless whether these were directed against residences in the narrow sense of the word, as long as the documents were personal papers of the petitioners or (to the extent that they were corporate papers) were held by them in a personal capacity or under their personal control. Prescinding a from the foregoing, this Court, at all events, should order the return to the petitioners all personal and private papers and effects seized, no matter where these were seized, whether from their residences or corporate offices or any other place or places. The uncontradicted sworn statements of the petitioners in their, various pleadings submitted to this Court indisputably show that amongst the things seized from the corporate offices and other places were personal and private papers and effects belonging to the petitioners. If there should be any categorization of the documents, papers and things which where the objects of the unlawful searches and seizures, I submit that the grouping should be: (a) personal or private papers of the petitioners were they were unlawfully seized, be it their family residences offices, warehouses and/or premises owned and/or possessed (actually or constructively) by them as shown in all the search and in the sworn applications filed in

securing the void search warrants and (b) purely corporate papers belonging to corporations. Under such categorization or grouping, the determination of which unlawfully seized papers, documents and things are personal/private of the petitioners or purely corporate papers will have to be left to the lower courts which issued the void search warrants in ultimately effecting the suppression and/or return of the said documents. And as unequivocally indicated by the authorities above cited, the petitioners likewise have clear legal standing to move for the suppression of purely corporate papers as "President and/or General Manager" of the corporations involved as specifically mentioned in the void search warrants. Finally, I must articulate my persuasion that although the cases cited in my disquisition were criminal prosecutions, the great clauses of the constitutional proscription on illegal searches and seizures do not withhold the mantle of their protection from cases not criminal in origin or nature.

enforcing the same and/or keeping the documents, papers and effects seized by virtue thereof, as well as from enforcing the tax assessments on petitioner corporation alleged by petitioners to have been made on the basis of the said documents, papers and effects, and to order the return of the latter to petitioners. We gave due course to the petition but did not issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for therein. The pertinent facts of this case, as gathered from record, are as follows: On February 24, 1970, respondent Misael P. Vera, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to respondent Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for violation of Section 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code, in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof, particularly Sections 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and authorizing Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon, one of herein respondents, to make and file the application for search warrant which was attached to the letter. In the afternoon of the following day, February 25, 1970, respondent De Leon and his witness, respondent Arturo Logronio, went to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. They brought with them the following papers: respondent Veras aforesaid letter-request; an application for search warrant already filled up but still unsigned by respondent De Leon; an affidavit of respondent Logronio subscribed before respondent De Leon; a deposition in printed form of respondent Logronio already accomplished and signed by him but not yet subscribed; and a search warrant already accomplished but still unsigned by respondent Judge.

G.R. No. L-32409 February 27, 1971 BACHE & CO. (PHIL.), INC. and FREDERICK E. SEGGERMAN, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, MISAEL P. VERA, in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ARTURO LOGRONIO, RODOLFO DE LEON, GAVINO VELASQUEZ, MIMIR DELLOSA, NICANOR ALCORDO, et al, respondents.

At that time respondent Judge was hearing a certain case; so, by means of a note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of respondents De Leon and Logronio. After the session had adjourned, respondent Judge was informed that the depositions had already been taken. The stenographer, upon request of respondent Judge, read to him her stenographic notes; and thereafter, respondent Judge asked respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. Respondent Judge signed respondent de Leons application for search warra nt and respondent Logronios deposition, Search Warrant No. 2 -M-70 was then sign by respondent Judge and accordingly issued. Three days later, or on February 28, 1970, which was a Saturday, the BIR agents served the search warrant petitioners at the offices of petitioner corporation on Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal. Petitioners lawyers protested the search on the ground that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was attached to the warrant. The agents nevertheless proceeded with their search which yielded six boxes of documents. On March 3, 1970, petitioners filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal praying that the search warrant be quashed, dissolved or recalled, that preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be issued, that the search warrant be declared null and void, and that the respondents be ordered to pay petitioners, jointly and severally, damages and attorneys fees. On March 18, 1970, the respondents, thru the Solicitor General, filed an answer to the petition. After hearing, the court, presided over by respondent Judge, issued on July 29, 1970, an order dismissing the petition for dissolution of the search warrant. In the meantime, or on April 16, 1970, the Bureau of Internal Revenue made tax assessments on petitioner

DECISION VILLAMOR, J: This is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction. In their petition Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and its President, Frederick E. Seggerman, pray this Court to declare null and void Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by respondent Judge on February 25, 1970; to order respondents to desist from

corporation in the total sum of P2,594,729.97, partly, if not entirely, based on the documents thus seized. Petitioners came to this Court. The petition should be granted for the following reasons: 1. Respondent Judge failed to personally examine the complainant and his witness. The pertinent provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines and of the Revised Rules of Court are: (3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Art. III, Sec. 1, Constitution.) SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or justice of the peace after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. No search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. SEC. 4. Examination of the applicant. The judge or justice of the peace must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. (Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court.) The examination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, required by Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3, of the Constitution, and by Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, should be conducted by the judge himself and not by others. The phrase which shall be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, appearing in the said constitutional provision, was introduced by Delegate Francisco as an amendment to the draft submitted by the Sub-Committee of Seven. The following discussion in the Constitutional Convention (Laurel, Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional Convention, Vol. III, pp. 755-757) is enlightening: SR. ORENSE. Vamos a dejar compaero los piropos y vamos al grano. En los casos de una necesidad de actuar inmediatamente para que no se frusten los fines de la justicia mediante el registro inmediato y la incautacion del cuerpo del delito, no cree Su Seoria que causaria cierta demora el procedimiento apuntado en su enmienda en tal forma que podria frustrar los fines de la justicia o si Su Seoria encuentra un remedio para esto casos con

el fin de compaginar los fines de la justicia con los derechos del individuo en su persona, bienes etcetera, etcetera. SR. FRANCISCO. No puedo ver en la practica el caso hipottico que Su Seoria pregunta por la siguiente razon: el que solicita un mandamiento de registro tiene que hacerlo por escrito y ese escrito no aparecer en la Mesa del Juez sin que alguien vaya el juez a presentar ese escrito o peticion de sucuestro. Esa persona que presenta el registro puede ser el mismo denunciante o alguna persona que solicita dicho mandamiento de registro. Ahora toda la enmienda en esos casos consiste en que haya peticion de registro y el juez no se atendra solamente a sea peticion sino que el juez examiner a ese denunciante y si tiene testigos tambin examiner a los testigos. SR. ORENSE. No cree Su Seoria que el tomar le declaracion de ese denunciante por escrito siempre requeriria algun tiempo?. SR. FRANCISCO. Seria cuestio de un par de horas, pero por otro lado minimizamos en todo lo posible las vejaciones injustas con la expedicion arbitraria de los mandamientos de registro. Creo que entre dos males debemos escoger. el menor. xxx xxx xxx

MR. LAUREL.. . . The reason why we are in favor of this amendm ent is because we are incorporating in our constitution something of a fundamental character. Now, before a judge could issue a search warrant, he must be under the obligation to examine personally under oath the complainant and if he has any witness, the witnesses that he may produce . . . The implementing rule in the Revised Rules of Court, Sec. 4, Rule 126, is more emphatic and candid, for it requires the judge, before issuing a search warrant, to personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce . . . Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause, pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3, of the Constitution, and Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, both of which prohibit the issuance of warrants except upon probable cause. The determination of whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary. In the case at bar, no personal examination at all was conducted by respondent Judge of the complainant (respondent De Leon) and his witness (respondent Logronio). While it is true that the complainants application for search warrant and the witness printed -form deposition were subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge, the latter did not ask either of the two any question the answer to which could possibly be the basis for determining whether or not there was probable cause against herein petitioners. Indeed, the participants seem to have attached so little significance to the matter that notes of the proceedings before respondent Judge were not even taken. At this juncture it may be well to recall the salient facts. The transcript of stenographic notes (pp. 61-76, April 1, 1970, Annex J-2 of the Petition) taken at the hearing of

this case in the court below shows that per instruction of respondent Judge, Mr. Eleodoro V. Gonzales, Special Deputy Clerk of Court, took the depositions of the complainant and his witness, and that stenographic notes thereof were taken by Mrs. Gaspar. At that time respondent Judge was at the sala hearing a case. After respondent Judge was through with the hearing, Deputy Clerk Gonzales, stenographer Gaspar, complainant De Leon and witness Logronio went to respondent Judges chamber and informed the Judge that they had finished the depositions. Respondent Judge then requested the stenographer to read to him her stenographic notes. Special Deputy Clerk Gonzales testified as follows: A And after finishing reading the stenographic notes, the Honorable Judge requested or instructed them, requested Mr. Logronio to raise his hand and warned him if his deposition will be found to be false and without legal basis, he can be charged criminally for perjury. The Honorable Court told Mr. Logronio whether he affirms the facts contained in his deposition and the affidavit executed before Mr. Rodolfo de Leon. Q And thereafter? A And thereafter, he signed the deposition of Mr. Logronio. Q Who is this he? A The Honorable Judge. Q The deposition or the affidavit? A The affidavit, Your Honor. Thereafter, respondent Judge signed the search warrant. The participation of respondent Judge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 was thus limited to listening to the stenographers readings of her notes, to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be consider a personal examination. If there was an examination at all of the complainant and his witness, it was the one conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court. But, as stated, the Constitution and the rules require a personal examination by the judge. It was precisely on account of the intention of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to make it a duty of the issuing judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses that the question of how much time would be consumed by the judge in examining them came up before the Convention, as can be seen from the record of the proceedings quoted above. The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate and the rule; for by that manner respondent Judge did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was in the best position to conceive. These were important in arriving at a sound inference on the all-important question of whether or not there was probable cause.

2. The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense. Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 was issued for [v]iolation of Sec. 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof particularly Secs. 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209. The question is: Was the said search warrant issued in connection with one specific offense, as required by Sec. 3, Rule 126? To arrive at the correct answer it is essential to examine closely the provisions of the Tax Code referred to above. Thus we find the following: Sec. 46(a) requires the filing of income tax returns by corporations. Sec. 53 requires the withholding of income taxes at source. Sec. 72 imposes surcharges for failure to render income tax returns and for rendering false and fraudulent returns. Sec. 73 provides the penalty for failure to pay the income tax, to make a return or to supply the information required under the Tax Code. Sec. 208 penalizes [a]ny person who distills, rectifies, repacks, compounds, or manufactures any article subject to a specific tax, without having paid the privilege tax therefore, or who aids or abets in the conduct of illicit distilling, rectifying, compounding, or illicit manufacture of any article subject to specific tax . . ., and provides that in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association, the official and/or employee who caused the violation shall be responsible. Sec. 209 penalizes the failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business, or gross value of output removed, or to pay the tax due thereon. The search warrant in question was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Tax Code. The first is the violation of Sec. 46(a), Sec. 72 and Sec. 73 (the filing of income tax returns), which are interrelated. The second is the violation of Sec. 53 (withholding of income taxes at source). The third is the violation of Sec. 208 (unlawful pursuit of business or occupation); and the fourth is the violation of Sec. 209 (failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business or gross value of output actually removed or to pay the tax due thereon). Even in their classification the six above-mentioned provisions are embraced in two different titles: Secs. 46(a), 53, 72 and 73 are under Title II (Income Tax); while Secs. 208 and 209 are under Title V (Privilege Tax on Business and Occupation). Respondents argue that Stonehill, et al. vs. Diokno, et al., L-19550, June 19, 1967 (20 SCRA 383), is not applicable, because there the search warrants were issued for violation of Central Bank Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code; whereas, here Search Warrant No 2-M-70 was issued for violation of only one code, i.e., the National Internal Revenue Code. The distinction more apparent than real, because it was precisely on account of the Stonehill

incident, which occurred sometime before the present Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964, that this Court amended the former rule by inserting therein the phrase in connection with one specific offense, and adding the sentence No search warrant shall is sue for more than one specific offense, in what is now Sec. 3, Rule 126. Thus we said in Stonehill: Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court that a search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. Not satisfied with this qualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. 3. The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized. The documents, papers and effects sought to be seized are described in Search Warrant No. 2M-70 in this manner: Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements books, customers ledgers); receipts for payments received; certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory notes and deeds of sale; telex and coded messages; business communications, accounting and business records; checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits and withdrawals; and records of foreign remittances, covering the years 1966 to 1970. The description does not meet the requirement in Art III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. In Stonehill, this Court, speaking thru Mr. Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, said: The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants was compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and seized, to wit: Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or paper showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements. Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants.

While the term all business transactions does not appear in Search Warrant No. 2 -M-70, the said warrant nevertheless tends to defeat the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the elimination of general warrants, for the language used therein is so all-embracing as to include all conceivable records of petitioner corporation, which, if seized, could possibly render its business inoperative. In Uy Kheytin, et al. vs. Villareal, etc., et al., 42 Phil. 886, 896, this Court had occasion to explain the purpose of the requirement that the warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized, to wit: . . . Both the Jones Law (sec. 3) and General Orders No. 58 (sec. 97) specifically require that a search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made, that abuses may not be committed. That this is the correct interpretation of this constitutional provision is borne out by Ame rican authorities. The purpose as thus explained could, surely and effectively, be defeated under the search warrant issued in this case. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People vs. Rubio; 57 Phil. 384); or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad Santos, J.,); or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 2, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court). The herein search warrant does not conform to any of the foregoing tests. If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than those articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence. In this event, the description contained in the herein disputed warrant should have mentioned, at least, the dates, amounts, persons, and other pertinent data regarding the receipts of payments, certificates of stocks and securities, contracts, promissory notes, deeds of sale, messages and communications, checks, bank deposits and withdrawals, records of foreign remittances, among others, enumerated in the warrant. Respondents contend that certiorari does not lie because petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of respondent Judges order of July 29, 1970. The contention is without merit. In the first place, when the questions raised before this Court are the same as those which were squarely raised in and passed upon by the court below, the filing of a motion for reconsideration in said court before certiorari can be instituted in this Court is no longer a prerequisite. (Pajo, etc., et al. vs. Ago, et al., 108 Phil., 905). In the second place, the rule requiring the filing of a motion for reconsideration before an application for a writ of certiorari can be entertained was never intended to be applied without considering the circumstances. (Matutina vs. Buslon, et al., 109 Phil., 140.) In the case at bar time is of the essence in view of the tax assessments sought to be enforced by respondent officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue against petitioner corporation, On account of which immediate and more direct action

becomes necessary. (Matute vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 26 SCRA 768.) Lastly, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the deprivation of petitioners fundamental right to due process taints the proceeding against them in the court below not only with irregularity but also with nullity. (Matute vs. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.) It is next contended by respondents that a corporation is not entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizures. Again, we find no merit in the contention. Although, for the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress passed in the exercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse to produce the books and papers of such corporation, we do not wish to be understood as holding that a corporation is not entitled to immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A corporation is, after all, but an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected, under the 14th Amendment, against unlawful discrimination . . . (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 50 L. ed. 652.) In Linn v. United States, 163 C.C.A. 470, 251 Fed. 476, 480, it was thought that a different rule applied to a corporation, the ground that it was not privileged from producing its books and papers. But the rights of a corporation against unlawful search and seizure are to be protected even if the same result might have been achieved in a lawful way. (Silverthorne Lumber Company, et al. v. United States of America, 251 U.S. 385, 64 L. ed. 319.) In Stonehill, et al. vs. Diokno, et al., supra, this Court impliedly recognized the right of a corporation to object against unreasonable searches and seizures, thus: As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or the interest of each of them in said corporations, whatever, the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity . . . In the Stonehill case only the officers of the various corporations in whose offices documents, papers and effects were searched and seized were the petitioners. In the case at bar, the corporation to whom the seized documents belong, and whose rights have thereby been

impaired, is itself a petitioner. On that score, petitioner corporation here stands on a different footing from the corporations in Stonehill. The tax assessments referred to earlier in this opinion were, if not entirely as claimed by petitioners at least partly as in effect admitted by respondents based on the documents seized by virtue of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70. Furthermore, the fact that the assessments were made some one and one-half months after the search and seizure on February 25, 1970, is a strong indication that the documents thus seized served as basis for the assessments. Those assessments should therefore not be enforced. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is granted. Accordingly, Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by respondent Judge is declared null and void; respondents are permanently enjoined from enforcing the said search warrant; the documents, papers and effects seized thereunder are ordered to be returned to petitioners; and respondent officials the Bureau of Internal Revenue and their representatives are permanently enjoined from enforcing the assessments mentioned in Annex G of the present petition, as well as other assessments based on the documents, papers and effects seized under the search warrant herein nullified, and from using the same against petitioners in any criminal or other proceeding. No pronouncement as to costs. Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee and Makasiar, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L., J., concurs with Mr. Justice Barredo. Castro, J., concurs in the result.
i

G.R. No. L-22619

December 2, 1924

NATIONAL COAL COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, defendant-appellant. Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellant. Perfecto J. Salas Rodriguez for appellee.

collected from the plaintiff; and sentenced the defendant to refund to the plaintiff the sum of P11,081.11 which is the difference between the amount collected under section 1496 of the Administrative Code and the amount which should have been collected under the provisions of said section 15 of Act No. 2719. From that sentence the defendant appealed, and now makes the following assignments of error: I. The court below erred in holding that section 15 of Act No. 2719 does not refer to coal lands owned by persons and corporations. II. The court below erred in holding that the plaintiff was not subject to the tax prescribed in section 1496 of the Administrative Code. The question confronting us in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is subject to the taxes under section 15 of Act No. 2719, or to the specific taxes under section 1496 of the Administrative Code. The plaintiff corporation was created on the 10th day of March, 1917, by Act No. 2705, for the purpose of developing the coal industry in the Philippine Island, in harmony with the general plan of the Government to encourage the development of the natural resources of the country, and to provided facilities therefor. By said Act, the company was granted the general powers of a corporation "and such other powers as may be necessary to enable it to prosecute the business of developing coal deposits in the Philippine Island and of mining, extracting, transporting and selling the coal contained in said deposits." (Sec. 2, Act No. 2705.) By the same law (Act No. 2705) the Government of the Philippine Islands is made the majority stockholder, evidently in order to insure proper government supervision and control, and thus to place the Government in a position to render all possible encouragement, assistance and help in the prosecution and furtherance of the company's business. On May 14, 1917, two months after the passage of Act No. 2705, creating the National Coal Company, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2719 "to provide for the leasing and development of coal lands in the Philippine Islands." On October 18, 1917, upon petition of the National Coal Company, the Governor-General, by Proclamation No. 39, withdrew "from settlement, entry, sale or other disposition, all coal-bearing public lands within the Province of Zamboanga, Department of Mindanao and Sulu, and the Island of Polillo, Province of Tayabas." Almost immediately after the issuance of said proclamation the National Coal Company took possession of the coal lands within the said reservation, with an area of about 400 hectares, without any further formality, contract or lease. Of the 30,000 shares of stock issued by the company, the Government of the Philippine Islands is the owner of 29,809 shares, that is, of 99 1/3 per centum of the whole capital stock.

JOHNSON, J.: This action was brought in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila on the 17th day of July, 1923, for the purpose of recovering the sum of P12,044.68, alleged to have been paid under protest by the plaintiff company to the defendant, as specific tax on 24,089.3 tons of coal. Said company is a corporation created by Act No. 2705 of the Philippine Legislature for the purpose of developing the coal industry in the Philippine Islands and is actually engaged in coal mining on reserved lands belonging to the Government. It claimed exemption from taxes under the provision of sections 14 and 15 of Act No. 2719, and prayed for a judgment ordering the defendant to refund to the plaintiff said sum of P12,044.68, with legal interest from the date of the presentation of the complaint, and costs against the defendant. The defendant answered denying generally and specifically all the material allegations of the complaint, except the legal existence and personality of the plaintiff. As a special defense, the defendant alleged (a) that the sum of P12,044.68 was paid by the plaintiff without protests, and (b) that said sum was due and owing from the plaintiff to the Government of the Philippine Islands under the provisions of section 1496 of the Administrative Code and prayed that the complaint be dismissed, with costs against the plaintiff. Upon the issue thus presented, the case was brought on for trial. After a consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties, the Honorable Pedro Conception, judge, held that the words "lands owned by any person, etc.," in section 15 of Act No. 2719 should be understood to mean "lands held in lease or usufruct," in harmony with the other provision of said Act; that the coal lands possessed by the plaintiff, belonging to the Government, fell within the provisions of section 15 of Act No. 2719; and that a tax of P0.04 per ton of 1,016 kilos on each ton of coal extracted therefrom, as provided in said section, was the only tax which should be

If we understand the theory of the plaintiff-appellee, it is, that it claims to be the owner of the land from which it has mined the coal in question and is therefore subject to the provisions of section 15 of Act No. 2719 and not to the provisions of the section 1496 of the Administrative Code. That contention of the plaintiff leads us to an examination of the evidence upon the question of the ownership of the land from which the coal in question was mined. Was the plaintiff the owner of the land from which the coal in question was mined? If the evidence shows the affirmative, then the judgment should be affirmed. If the evidence shows that the land does not belong to the plaintiff, then the judgment should be reversed, unless the plaintiff's rights fall under section 3 of said Act. The only witness presented by the plaintiff upon the question of the ownership of the land in question was Mr. Dalmacio Costas, who stated that he was a member of the board of directors of the plaintiff corporation; that the plaintiff corporation took possession of the land in question by virtue of the proclamation of the GovernorGeneral, known as Proclamation No. 39 of the year 1917; that no document had been issued in favor of the plaintiff corporation; that said corporation had received no permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; that it took possession of said lands covering an area of about 400 hectares, from which the coal in question was mined, solely, by virtue of said proclamation (Exhibit B, No. 39). Said proclamation (Exhibit B) was issued by Francis Burton Harrison, then Governor-General, on the 18th day of October, 1917, and provided: "Pursuant to the provision of section 71 of Act No. 926, I hereby withdraw from settlement, entry, sale, or other disposition, all coal-bearing public lands within the Province of Zamboanga, Department of Mindanao and Sulu, and the Island of Polillo, Province of Tayabas." It will be noted that said proclamation only provided that all coalbearing public lands within said province and island should be withdrawn from settlement, entry, sale, or other disposition. There is nothing in said proclamation which authorizes the plaintiff or any other person to enter upon said reversations and to mine coal, and no provision of law has been called to our attention, by virtue of which the plaintiff was entitled to enter upon any of the lands so reserved by said proclamation without first obtaining permission therefor. The plaintiff is a private corporation. The mere fact that the Government happens to the majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation. Act No. 2705, as amended by Act No. 2822, makes it subject to all of the provisions of the Corporation Law, in so far as they are not inconsistent with said Act (No. 2705). No provisions of Act No. 2705 are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Corporation Law. As a private corporation, it has no greater rights, powers or privileges than any other corporation which might be organized for the same purpose under the Corporation Law, and certainly it was not the intention of the

Legislature to give it a preference or right or privilege over other legitimate private corporations in the mining of coal. While it is true that said proclamation No. 39 withdrew "from settlement, entry, sale, or other disposition of coal-bearing public lands within the Province of Zamboanga . . . and the Island of Polillo," it made no provision for the occupation and operation by the plaintiff, to the exclusion of other persons or corporations who might, under proper permission, enter upon the operate coal mines. On the 14th day of May, 1917, and before the issuance of said proclamation, the Legislature of the Philippine Island in "an Act for the leasing and development of coal lands in the Philippine Islands" (Act No. 2719), made liberal provision. Section 1 of said Act provides: "Coal-bearing lands of the public domain in the Philippine Island shall not be disposed of in any manner except as provided in this Act," thereby giving a clear indication that no "coal-bearing lands of the public domain" had been disposed of by virtue of said proclamation. Neither is there any provision in Act No. 2705 creating the National Coal Company, nor in the amendments thereof found in Act No. 2822, which authorizes the National Coal Company to enter upon any of the reserved coal lands without first having obtained permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.lawphi1.net The following propositions are fully sustained by the facts and the law: (1) The National Coal Company is an ordinary private corporation organized under Act No. 2705, and has no greater powers nor privileges than the ordinary private corporation, except those mentioned, perhaps, in section 10 of Act No. 2719, and they do not change the situation here. (2) It mined on public lands between the month of July, 1920, and the months of March, 1922, 24,089.3 tons of coal. (3) Upon demand of the Collector of Internal Revenue it paid a tax of P0.50 a ton, as taxes under the provisions of article 1946 of the Administrative Code on the 15th day of December, 1922. (4) It is admitted that it is neither the owner nor the lessee of the lands upon which said coal was mined. (5) The proclamation of Francis Burton Harrison, Governor-General, of the 18th day of October, 1917, by authority of section 1 of Act No. 926, withdrawing from

settlement, entry, sale, or other dispositon all coal-bearing public lands within the Province of Zamboanga and the Island of Polillo, was not a reservation for the benefit of the National Coal Company, but for any person or corporation of the Philippine Islands or of the United States. (6) That the National Coal Company entered upon said land and mined said coal, so far as the record shows, without any lease or other authority from either the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources or any person having the power to grant a leave or authority. From all of the foregoing facts we find that the issue is well defined between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff contends that it was liable only to pay the internal revenue and other fees and taxes provided for under section 15 of Act No. 2719; while the defendant contends, under the facts of record, the plaintiff is obliged to pay the internal revenue duty provided for in section 1496 of the Administrative Code. That being the issue, an examination of the provisions of Act No. 2719 becomes necessary. An examination of said Act (No. 2719) discloses the following facts important for consideration here: First. All "coal-bearing lands of the public domain in the Philippine Islands shall not be disposed of in any manner except as provided in this Act." Second. Provisions for leasing by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources of "unreserved, unappropriated coal-bearing public lands," and the obligation to the Government which shall be imposed by said Secretary upon the lessee. lawphi1.net Third. The internal revenue duty and tax which must be paid upon coal-bearing lands owned by any person, firm, association or corporation. To repeat, it will be noted, first, that Act No. 2719 provides an internal revenue duty and tax upon unreserved, unappropriated coal-bearing public lands which may be leased by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; and, second, that said Act (No. 2719) provides an internal revenue duty and tax imposed upon any person, firm, association or corporation, who may be the owner of "coal-bearing lands." A reading of said Act clearly shows that the tax imposed thereby is imposed upon two classes of persons only lessees and owners. The lower court had some trouble in determining what was the correct interpretation of section 15 of said Act, by reason of what he believed to be some difference in the interpretation of the language used in Spanish and English. While there is some

ground for confusion in the use of the language in Spanish and English, we are persuaded, considering all the provisions of said Act, that said section 15 has reference only to persons, firms, associations or corporations which had already, prior to the existence of said Act, become the owners of coal lands. Section 15 cannot certainty refer to "holders or lessees of coal lands' for the reason that practically all of the other provisions of said Act has reference to lessees or holders. If section 15 means that the persons, firms, associations, or corporation mentioned therein are holders or lessees of coal lands only, it is difficult to understand why the internal revenue duty and tax in said section was made different from the obligations mentioned in section 3 of said Act, imposed upon lessees or holders. From all of the foregoing, it seems to be made plain that the plaintiff is neither a lessee nor an owner of coal-bearing lands, and is, therefore, not subject to any other provisions of Act No. 2719. But, is the plaintiff subject to the provisions of section 1496 of the Administrative Code? Section 1496 of the Administrative Code provides that "on all coal and coke there shall be collected, per metric ton, fifty centavos." Said section (1496) is a part of article, 6 which provides for specific taxes. Said article provides for a specific internal revenue tax upon all things manufactured or produced in the Philippine Islands for domestic sale or consumption, and upon things imported from the United States or foreign countries. It having been demonstrated that the plaintiff has produced coal in the Philippine Islands and is not a lessee or owner of the land from which the coal was produced, we are clearly of the opinion, and so hold, that it is subject to pay the internal revenue tax under the provisions of section 1496 of the Administrative Code, and is not subject to the payment of the internal revenue tax under section 15 of Act No. 2719, nor to any other provisions of said Act. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby revoked, and the defendant is hereby relieved from all responsibility under the complaint. And, without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered. Philippine Society veris COA Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 169752 September 25, 2007

PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, DIR. RODULFO J. ARIESGA (in his official capacity as Director of the Commission on Audit), MS. MERLE M. VALENTIN and MS. SUSAN GUARDIAN (in their official capacities as Team Leader and Team Member, respectively, of the audit Team of the Commission on Audit), Respondents. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before the Court is a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 2 of Rule 64, filed by the petitioner assailing Office Order No. 2005-0211 dated September 14, 2005 issued by the respondents which constituted the audit team, as well as its September 23, 2005 Letter2 informing the petitioner that respondents audit team shall conduct an audit survey on the petitioner for a detailed audit of its accounts, operations, and financial transactions. No temporary restraining order was issued. The petitioner was incorporated as a juridical entity over one hundred years ago by virtue of Act No. 1285, enacted on January 19, 1905, by the Philippine Commission. The petitioner, at the time it was created, was composed of animal aficionados and animal propagandists. The objects of the petitioner, as stated in Section 2 of its charter, shall be to enforce laws relating to cruelty inflicted upon animals or the protection of animals in the Philippine Islands, and generally, to do and perform all things which may tend in any way to alleviate the suffering of animals and promote their welfare.3 At the time of the enactment of Act No. 1285, the original Corporation Law, Act No. 1459, was not yet in existence. Act No. 1285 antedated both the Corporation Law and the constitution of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Important to note is that the nature of the petitioner as a corporate entity is distinguished from the sociedad anonimas under the Spanish Code of Commerce. For the purpose of enhancing its powers in promoting animal welfare and enforcing laws for the protection of animals, the petitioner was initially imbued under its charter with the power to apprehend violators of animal welfare laws. In addition, the petitioner was to share one-half (1/2) of the fines imposed and collected through

its efforts for violations of the laws related thereto. As originally worded, Sections 4 and 5 of Act No. 1285 provide: SEC. 4. The said society is authorized to appoint not to exceed five agents in the City of Manila, and not to exceed two in each of the provinces of the Philippine Islands who shall have all the power and authority of a police officer to make arrests for violation of the laws enacted for the prevention of cruelty to animals and the protection of animals, and to serve any process in connection with the execution of such laws; and in addition thereto, all the police force of the Philippine Islands, wherever organized, shall, as occasion requires, assist said society, its members or agents, in the enforcement of all such laws. SEC. 5. One-half of all the fines imposed and collected through the efforts of said society, its members or its agents, for violations of the laws enacted for the prevention of cruelty to animals and for their protection, shall belong to said society and shall be used to promote its objects. (emphasis supplied) Subsequently, however, the power to make arrests as well as the privilege to retain a portion of the fines collected for violation of animal-related laws were recalled by virtue of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 148,4 which reads, in its entirety, thus: Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines: Section 1. Section four of Act Numbered Twelve hundred and eighty-five as amended by Act Numbered Thirty five hundred and forty-eight, is hereby further amended so as to read as follows: Sec. 4. The said society is authorized to appoint not to exceed ten agents in the City of Manila, and not to exceed one in each municipality of the Philippines who shall have the authority to denounce to regular peace officers any violation of the laws enacted for the prevention of cruelty to animals and the protection of animals and to cooperate with said peace officers in the prosecution of transgressors of such laws. Sec. 2. The full amount of the fines collected for violation of the laws against cruelty to animals and for the protection of animals, shall accrue to the general fund of the Municipality where the offense was committed. Sec. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved, November 8, 1936. (Emphasis supplied) Immediately thereafter, then President Manuel L. Quezon issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 63 dated November 12, 1936, portions of which provide: Whereas, during the first regular session of the National Assembly, Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred Forty Eight was enacted depriving the agents of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of their power to arrest persons who have violated the laws prohibiting cruelty to animals thereby correcting a serious defect in one of the laws existing in our statute books. xxxx Whereas, the cruel treatment of animals is an offense against the State, penalized under our statutes, which the Government is duty bound to enforce; Now, therefore, I, Manuel L. Quezon, President of the Philippines, pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, hereby decree, order, and direct the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Provost Marshal General as head of the Constabulary Division of the Philippine Army, every Mayor of a chartered city, and every municipal president to detail and organize special members of the police force, local, national, and the Constabulary to watch, capture, and prosecute offenders against the laws enacted to prevent cruelty to animals. (Emphasis supplied) On December 1, 2003, an audit team from respondent Commission on Audit (COA) visited the office of the petitioner to conduct an audit survey pursuant to COA Office Order No. 2003-051 dated November 18, 20035 addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner demurred on the ground that it was a private entity not under the jurisdiction of COA, citing Section 2(1) of Article IX of the Constitution which specifies the general jurisdiction of the COA, viz: Section 1. General Jurisdiction. 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 and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and officers that have been granted fiscal autonomy under the Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other governmentowned 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. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner explained thus: a. Although the petitioner was created by special legislation, this necessarily came about because in January 1905 there was as yet neither a Corporation Law or any other general law under which it may be organized and incorporated, nor a Securities and Exchange Commission which would have passed upon its organization and incorporation. b. That Executive Order No. 63, issued during the Commonwealth period, effectively deprived the petitioner of its power to make arrests, and that the petitioner lost its operational funding, underscore the fact that it exercises no governmental function. In fine, the government itself, by its overt acts, confirmed petitioners status as a private juridical entity. The COA General Counsel issued a Memorandum6 dated May 6, 2004, asserting that the petitioner was subject to its audit authority. In a letter dated May 17, 2004,7 respondent COA informed the petitioner of the result of the evaluation, furnishing it with a copy of said Memorandum dated May 6, 2004 of the General Counsel. Petitioner thereafter filed with the respondent COA a Request for Re-evaluation dated May 19, 2004,8 insisting that it was a private domestic corporation. Acting on the said request, the General Counsel of respondent COA, in a Memorandum dated July 13, 2004,9 affirmed her earlier opinion that the petitioner was a government entity that was subject to the audit jurisdiction of respondent COA. In a letter dated September 14, 2004, the respondent COA informed the petitioner of the result of the re-evaluation, maintaining its position that the petitioner was subject to its audit jurisdiction, and requested an initial conference with the respondents. In a Memorandum dated September 16, 2004, Director Delfin Aguilar reported to COA Assistant Commissioner Juanito Espino, Corporate Government Sector, that

the audit survey was not conducted due to the refusal of the petitioner because the latter maintained that it was a private corporation. Petitioner received on September 27, 2005 the subject COA Office Order 2005-021 dated September 14, 2005 and the COA Letter dated September 23, 2005. Hence, herein Petition on the following grounds: A. RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON AUDIT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER IS SUBJECT TO ITS AUDIT AUTHORITY. B. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, THERE BEING NO APPEAL, NOR ANY PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW AVAILABLE TO IT.10 The essential question before this Court is whether the petitioner qualifies as a government agency that may be subject to audit by respondent COA. Petitioner argues: first, even though it was created by special legislation in 1905 as there was no general law then existing under which it may be organized or incorporated, it exercises no governmental functions because these have been revoked by C.A. No. 148 and E.O. No. 63; second, nowhere in its charter is it indicated that it is a public corporation, unlike, for instance, C.A. No. 111 which created the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, defined its powers and purposes, and specifically stated that it was "An Act to Create a Public Corporation" in which, even as amended by Presidential Decree No. 460, the law still adverted to the Boy Scouts of the Philippines as a "public corporation," all of which are not obtaining in the charter of the petitioner; third, if it were a government body, there would have been no need for the State to grant it tax exemptions under Republic Act No. 1178, and the fact that it was so exempted strengthens its position that it is a private institution; fourth, the employees of the petitioner are registered and covered by the Social Security System at the latters initiative and not through the Government Service Insurance System, which should have been the case had the employees been considered government employees; fifth, the petitioner does not receive any form of

financial assistance from the government, since C.A. No. 148, amending Section 5 of Act No. 1285, states that the "full amount of the fines, collected for violation of the laws against cruelty to animals and for the protection of animals, shall accrue to the general fund of the Municipality where the offense was committed"; sixth, C.A. No. 148 effectively deprived the petitioner of its powers to make arrests and serve processes as these functions were placed in the hands of the police force; seventh, no government appointee or representative sits on the board of trustees of the petitioner; eighth, a reading of the provisions of its charter (Act No. 1285) fails to show that any act or decision of the petitioner is subject to the approval of or control by any government agency, except to the extent that it is governed by the law on private corporations in general; and finally, ninth, the Committee on Animal Welfare, under the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, includes members from both the private and the public sectors. The respondents contend that since the petitioner is a "body politic" created by virtue of a special legislation and endowed with a governmental purpose, then, indubitably, the COA may audit the financial activities of the latter. Respondents in effect divide their contentions into six strains: first, the test to determine whether an entity is a government corporation lies in the manner of its creation, and, since the petitioner was created by virtue of a special charter, it is thus a government corporation subject to respondents auditing power; second, the petitioner exercises "sovereign powers," that is, it is tasked to enforce the laws for the protection and welfare of animals which "ultimately redound to the public good and welfare," and, therefore, it is deemed to be a government "instrumentality" as defined under the Administrative Code of 1987, the purpose of which is connected with the administration of government, as purportedly affirmed by American jurisprudence; third, by virtue of Section 23,11 Title II, Book III of the same Code, the Office of the President exercises supervision or control over the petitioner; fourth, under the same Code, the requirement under its special charter for the petitioner to render a report to the Civil Governor, whose functions have been inherited by the Office of the President, clearly reflects the nature of the petitioner as a government instrumentality; fifth, despite the passage of the Corporation Code, the law creating the petitioner had not been abolished, nor had it been re-incorporated under any general corporation law; and finally, sixth, Republic Act No. 8485, otherwise known as the "Animal Welfare Act of 1998," designates the petitioner as a member of its Committee on Animal Welfare which is attached to the Department of Agriculture. In view of the phrase "One-half of all the fines imposed and collected through the efforts of said society," the Court, in a Resolution dated January 30, 2007, required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the parties to comment on: a) petitioner's authority to impose fines and the validity of the provisions of Act No. 1285 and Commonwealth Act No. 148 considering that there are no standard measures provided for in the aforecited laws as to the manner of implementation, the

specific violations of the law, the person/s authorized to impose fine and in what amount; and, b) the effect of the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions on whether petitioner continues to exist or should organize as a private corporation under the Corporation Code, B.P. Blg. 68 as amended. Petitioner and the OSG filed their respective Comments. Respondents filed a Manifestation stating that since they were being represented by the OSG which filed its Comment, they opted to dispense with the filing of a separate one and adopt for the purpose that of the OSG. The petitioner avers that it does not have the authority to impose fines for violation of animal welfare laws; it only enjoyed the privilege of sharing in the fines imposed and collected from its efforts in the enforcement of animal welfare laws; such privilege, however, was subsequently abolished by C.A. No. 148; that it continues to exist as a private corporation since it was created by the Philippine Commission before the effectivity of the Corporation law, Act No. 1459; and the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions. The OSG submits that Act No. 1285 and its amendatory laws did not give petitioner the authority to impose fines for violation of laws12 relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals and the protection of animals; that even prior to the amendment of Act No. 1285, petitioner was only entitled to share in the fines imposed; C.A. No. 148 abolished that privilege to share in the fines collected; that petitioner is a public corporation and has continued to exist since Act No. 1285; petitioner was not repealed by the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions which contain transitory provisions maintaining all laws issued not inconsistent therewith until amended, modified or repealed. The petition is impressed with merit. The arguments of the parties, interlaced as they are, can be disposed of in five points. First, the Court agrees with the petitioner that the "charter test" cannot be applied. Essentially, the "charter test" as it stands today provides: [T]he test to determine whether a corporation is government owned or controlled, or private in nature is simple. Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions, and its

employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and are compulsory members of the Government Service Insurance System. xxx (Emphasis supplied)13 The petitioner is correct in stating that the charter test is predicated, at best, on the legal regime established by the 1935 Constitution, Section 7, Article XIII, which states: Sec. 7. The National Assembly shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations, unless such corporations are owned or controlled by the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof.14 The foregoing proscription has been carried over to the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions. Section 16 of Article XII of the present Constitution provides: Sec. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. Section 16 is essentially a re-enactment of Section 7 of Article XVI of the 1935 Constitution and Section 4 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. During the formulation of the 1935 Constitution, the Committee on Franchises recommended the foregoing proscription to prevent the pressure of special interests upon the lawmaking body in the creation of corporations or in the regulation of the same. To permit the lawmaking body by special law to provide for the organization, formation, or regulation of private corporations would be in effect to offer to it the temptation in many cases to favor certain groups, to the prejudice of others or to the prejudice of the interests of the country.15 And since the underpinnings of the charter test had been introduced by the 1935 Constitution and not earlier, it follows that the test cannot apply to the petitioner, which was incorporated by virtue of Act No. 1285, enacted on January 19, 1905. Settled is the rule that laws in general have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.16 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. In case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved against the retrospective effect.17

There are a few exceptions. Statutes can be given retroactive effect in the following cases: (1) when the law itself so expressly provides; (2) in case of remedial statutes; (3) in case of curative statutes; (4) in case of laws interpreting others; and (5) in case of laws creating new rights.18 None of the exceptions is present in the instant case. The general principle of prospectivity of the law likewise applies to Act No. 1459, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, which had been enacted by virtue of the plenary powers of the Philippine Commission on March 1, 1906, a little over a year after January 19, 1905, the time the petitioner emerged as a juridical entity. Even the Corporation Law respects the rights and powers of juridical entities organized beforehand, viz: SEC. 75. Any corporation or sociedad anonima formed, organized, and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands and lawfully transacting business in the Philippine Islands on the date of the passage of this Act, shall be subject to the provisions hereof so far as such provisions may be applicable and shall be entitled at its option either to continue business as such corporation or to reform and organize under and by virtue of the provisions of this Act, transferring all corporate interests to the new corporation which, if a stock corporation, is authorized to issue its shares of stock at par to the stockholders or members of the old corporation according to their interests. (Emphasis supplied). As pointed out by the OSG, both the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions contain transitory provisions maintaining all laws issued not inconsistent therewith until amended, modified or repealed.19 In a legal regime where the charter test doctrine cannot be applied, the mere fact that a corporation has been created by virtue of a special law does not necessarily qualify it as a public corporation. What then is the nature of the petitioner as a corporate entity? What legal regime governs its rights, powers, and duties? As stated, at the time the petitioner was formed, the applicable law was the Philippine Bill of 1902, and, emphatically, as also stated above, no proscription similar to the charter test can be found therein. The textual foundation of the charter test, which placed a limitation on the power of the legislature, first appeared in the 1935 Constitution. However, the petitioner was incorporated in 1905 by virtue of Act No. 1258, a law antedating the Corporation Law (Act No. 1459) by a year, and the 1935 Constitution, by thirty years. There

being neither a general law on the formation and organization of private corporations nor a restriction on the legislature to create private corporations by direct legislation, the Philippine Commission at that moment in history was well within its powers in 1905 to constitute the petitioner as a private juridical entity.1wphi1 Time and again the Court must caution even the most brilliant scholars of the law and all constitutional historians on the danger of imposing legal concepts of a later date on facts of an earlier date.20 The amendments introduced by C.A. No. 148 made it clear that the petitioner was a private corporation and not an agency of the government. This was evident in Executive Order No. 63, issued by then President of the Philippines Manuel L. Quezon, declaring that the revocation of the powers of the petitioner to appoint agents with powers of arrest "corrected a serious defect" in one of the laws existing in the statute books. As a curative statute, and based on the doctrines so far discussed, C.A. No. 148 has to be given retroactive effect, thereby freeing all doubt as to which class of corporations the petitioner belongs, that is, it is a quasi-public corporation, a kind of private domestic corporation, which the Court will further elaborate on under the fourth point. Second, a reading of petitioners charter shows that it is not subject to control or supervision by any agency of the State, unlike government-owned and -controlled corporations. No government representative sits on the board of trustees of the petitioner. Like all private corporations, the successors of its members are determined voluntarily and solely by the petitioner in accordance with its by-laws, and may exercise those powers generally accorded to private corporations, such as the powers to hold property, to sue and be sued, to use a common seal, and so forth. It may adopt by-laws for its internal operations: the petitioner shall be managed or operated by its officers "in accordance with its by-laws in force." The pertinent provisions of the charter provide: Section 1. Anna L. Ide, Kate S. Wright, John L. Chamberlain, William F. Tucker, Mary S. Fergusson, Amasa S. Crossfield, Spencer Cosby, Sealy B. Rossiter, Richard P. Strong, Jose Robles Lahesa, Josefina R. de Luzuriaga, and such other persons as may be associated with them in conformity with this act, and their successors, are hereby constituted and created a body politic and corporate at law, under the name and style of "The Philippines Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals."

As incorporated by this Act, said society shall have the power to add to its organization such and as many members as it desires, to provide for and choose such officers as it may deem advisable, and in such manner as it may wish, and to remove members as it shall provide. It shall have the right to sue and be sued, to use a common seal, to receive legacies and donations, to conduct social enterprises for the purpose of obtaining funds, to levy dues upon its members and provide for their collection to hold real and personal estate such as may be necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of the society, and to adopt such by-laws for its government as may not be inconsistent with law or this charter. xxxx Sec. 3. The said society shall be operated under the direction of its officers, in accordance with its by-laws in force, and this charter. xxxx Sec. 6. The principal office of the society shall be kept in the city of Manila, and the society shall have full power to locate and establish branch offices of the society wherever it may deem advisable in the Philippine Islands, such branch offices to be under the supervision and control of the principal office. Third. The employees of the petitioner are registered and covered by the Social Security System at the latters initiative, and not through the Government Service Insurance System, which should be the case if the employees are considered government employees. This is another indication of petitioners nature as a private entity. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 8282, otherwise known as the Social Security Act of 1997, defines the employer: Employer Any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking or activity of any kind and uses the services of another person who is under his orders as regards the employment, except the Government and any of its political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including corporations owned or controlled by the Government: Provided, That a self-employed person shall be both employee and employer at the same time. (Emphasis supplied)

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, 21 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,22 railroad, warehouse, telegraph, telephone, water supply corporations and transportation companies.23 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.241wphi1 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 with gifts or donations from private individuals. The true criterion, therefore, to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State. If the corporation is created by the State as the latters own agency or instrumentality to help it in carrying out its governmental functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise, it is private. Applying the above test, provinces, chartered cities, and barangays can best exemplify public corporations. They are created by the State as its own device and agency for the accomplishment of parts of its own public works.25 It is clear that the amendments introduced by C.A. No. 148 revoked the powers of the petitioner to arrest offenders of animal welfare laws and the power to serve processes in connection therewith.

Fifth. The respondents argue that since the charter of the petitioner requires the latter to render periodic reports to the Civil Governor, whose functions have been inherited by the President, the petitioner is, therefore, a government instrumentality. This contention is inconclusive. By virtue of the fiction that all corporations owe their very existence and powers to the State, the reportorial requirement is applicable to all corporations of whatever nature, whether they are public, quasi-public, or private corporationsas creatures of the State, there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate the activities of a corporation to determine whether it acted within its powers. In other words, the reportorial requirement is the principal means by which the State may see to it that its creature acted according to the powers and functions conferred upon it. These principles were extensively discussed in Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co., Inc. v. Presidential Commission on Good Government.26 Here, the Court, in holding that the subject corporation could not invoke the right against self-incrimination whenever the State demanded the production of its corporate books and papers, extensively discussed the purpose of reportorial requirements, viz: x x x The corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It received certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserve[d] right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this, that an officer of the corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation vested with special privileges and franchises may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges. (Wilson v. United States, 55 Law Ed., 771, 780.)27 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner is DECLARED a private domestic corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The respondents are ENJOINED from investigating, examining and auditing the petitioner's fiscal and financial affairs.

SO ORDERED.