PHIL.

GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS VS RELOVA

145 SCRA 385, November 10, 1986



Facts:

The petitioner, Philippine Global Communications, filed an application for authority to
establish a branch station in Cebu City for the purpose of rendering international
telecommunication services. The said petition was granted and was, however, opposed
by the herein respondents.

The respondents question such authority granted to the petitioner to establish stations
or substations in places or points outside Metropolitan Manila pursuant to its legislative
franchise, Republic Act No. 4617. The respondents also question whether such
establishment constitutes domestic service within the terms of petitioner's legislative
franchise.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner, Philippine Global Communications, may establish a
branch station in Cebu City.

Held:

Yes, because Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4617 and Memorandum Circular No. 08-8-
83 specifically provide that the petitioner has the right and the privilege of constructing,
maintaining and operating communications system between any point in the Philippines
to points exterior thereto.

Furthermore, the legal opinions of both the Secretary and Undersecretary of Justice
shed some light with regard to the issues raised by the respondents. The said opinion
states that all wire-less communications between points of stations within the Philippine
Islands' is clearly intended to refer only to domestic communications. Hence, such
action of the petitioner, to establish a branch station in Cebu City, clearly falls within the
terms, domestic service, and, as such, within the scope of the petitioners legislative
franchise.









PHIL. SUGAR CENTRAL VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
51 PHIL 131, December 6, 1927




Facts:

The petitioner, Philippine Sugar Central Agency, shipped at Pulupandan, Occidental
Negros kilos of centrifugal sugar consigned to the United States. The said sugar was
laden in a wharf, owned and maintained by Ma-ao Sugar Central Company, a domestic
corporation.

However, the respondent, Collector of Customs, assessed and collected wharfage dues
on the sugar, since the wharf used by the Philippine Sugar Central Agency for shipping
the said goods did not belong to the Government.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner, Philippine Sugar Central Agency, should pay to the
respondent, Collector of Customs, the wharfage dues.

Held:

Yes, because, even if the language of the Act was not specific and certain, its history,
its long continuous construction, and what has been done and accomplished by and
under it, however, clearly shows that the Government is entitled to have and receive the
money in question, even though the sugar was shipped from a private wharf.
Furthermore, in view of the long continuous construction which has been placed upon it
by the government officials, the very fact that Congress has not seen fit to repeal or
change the law is a very potent argument in favor of sustaining that construction.

Courts will give weight to the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by
the executive officers whose duty it is to enforce it, and, unless such interpretation is
clearly erroneous, will ordinarily be controlled thereby.












PAFLU VS BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS
72 SCRA 396, August 21, 1976



Facts:

The respondent, National Federation of Free Labor Unions (NAFLU), won against the
petitioner, Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) in the certification
election, receiving 429 votes as against 414. As a result, the Director of Labor
Relations, Carmelo Noriel, upheld the victory of the respondent pursuant to the Rules
and Regulations implementing the present Labor Code, which states that a majority of
the valid votes cast suffices for certification of the victorious labor union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent.

However, the petitioner contends that spoiled ballots should be counted in determining
the valid votes cast. Since there were only seventeen spoiled ballots and four votes
cast by employees who did not want any union, the petitioner is in the view that there
was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Director of Labor Relations.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a grave abuse discretion on the part of the Director of Labor
Relations, Carmelo Noriel, in upholding the winning of the respondent NAFLU.

Held:

No, because the said Director only complied with the Rules and Regulations
implementing the Labor Code. The construction placed by him in implementing and
enforcing the provisions of a Code should be given controlling weight.

Furthermore, the principle that the contemporaneous construction of a statute by the
executive officers of the government, whose duty it is to execute it, is entitled to great
respect, and should ordinarily control the construction of the statute by the courts, is so
firmly embedded in our jurisprudence that no authorities need be cited to support it.











ILOILO PALAY AND CORN PLANTERS VS FELICIANO
13 SCRA 377, March 3, 1965



Facts:

Jose Feliciano, the respondent and the Chairman and General Manager of the Rice and
Corn Administration, wrote the President of the Philippines, urging the immediate
importation of rice. The said importation was approved but was, however, opposed by
the petitioner, Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc.

The herein petitioner contends that such importation is contrary to Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 3452, which provides that the importation of rice and corn is only left to
private parties upon payment of the corresponding taxes. The respondent, on the other
hand, upholds the validity of the importation citing Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2207,
which provides that should there be an existing or imminent shortage in the local supply
of rice of such gravity as to constitute a national emergency, the President of the
Philippines may authorize such importation thru any government agency that he may
designate.

Issue:

Whether or not Republic Act no. 3452 repealed Republic Act No. 2207, making the
recommendation of the respondent, Jose Feliciano, to import rice invalid.

Held:

No, because no repeal has been made between the two Acts. The two laws should be
construed as harmonious parts of the legislative expression of its policy to promote a
rice and corn program. This can be done in adopting such interpretation that would give
effect to both laws.

Reading those two provisions together, it is plain to see that they are not totally
repugnant to each other, and that it is possible for them to stand together. Furthermore,
there is nothing in the provision contained in Republic Act No. 3452 which would be
inconsistent with importation during a shortage amounting to a national emergency.