[SUBJECT Admin] | [TOPIC Absolutely No Evidence] 1

[Digest maker Kyle Subido]

CASE NAME Beautifont v CA

[GR NO. L-50141] | [DATE Jan 29, 1988] | [PONENTE Narvasa, J.]

CASE SUMMARY P both applied w/ BOI for authority to accept permissible

investments of 2 American-owned firms, pursuant to RA 5455, Permissible
Investments Law. BOI prepared the notice of applications to which R opposed saying
they didnt publish the actual application, they only published the notice (not
following Sec. 7 of RA daw). R wants an injunction against BOI for approving the
applications. CFI dismissed while CA granted a TRO. SC decided that the CFI was right
and CA was wrong coz the BOI wasnt acting in GAOD(basis for the injunction issued)
when it overruled Rs objections to how the approved the applications.

DOCTRINE The consequent policy and practice underlying our Administrative Law is
that courts of justice should respect the findings of fact of said administrative
agencies, unless there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such evidence
is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial

FACTS bullet points

P Aura Laboratories Inc and Beautifont Inc are domestic corps engaged in
manufacture of cosmetic products and marketing/distribution of such.
Both applied w/ Board of Investments for authority to accept permissible
investments of 2 American-owned firms, Avon Products and Manila
Manufacturing Co., filed in accordance w/ RA 5455, Permissible Investments
Law (requires approval by BOI of a foreign natl in a local corp. w/c would exceed
30% outstanding capital)
BOI prepared the notice of applications w/c was published in Official Gazette
and newspapers of GenCirc. (15d to oppose)
Rustan Marketing Corp and Holiday Cosmetics opposed it: (1) would conflict
with the Retail Trade Nationalization Act; (2) would pose a clear and present
danger of a monopoly in the cosmetics industry; (3) would be made in an
enterprise already adequately exploited by Philippine nationals (4) were
inconsistent with the Government's Investment Priorities Plans as well as
declared national policies; and (5) would not contribute to a sound and balanced
development of the national economy.
Notice of hearing published, inviting all interested parties
At the hearing, Rustan and Holiday (R) alleged fatal jurisdictional defect in
proceedings: violation by the BOI of Section 7 of RA 5455 in that instead of
requiring and causing publication of the applications themselves which is
what in their view the cited provision directs only notice thereof had actually
been published and posted.
o officer of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry also
appeared to oppose the applications
Applications were eventually approved, Certificate of Authority issued P
accepted the foreign equity investments and transfer of stock made.
 R filed w/ CFI Manila, petition for certiorari + preliminary injunction later
amended to annul BOI resolution + prohibit them from approving the
applications
CFI denied the motion, filed MR but before MR resolution, R went to CA filing the
same petition for cert + PI.
CA Issued the TRO so P went to SC, filed certiorari and PI vs CA and R
R: administrative cognizance had been taken by the "Office of the
President/Prime Minister" of the Ps applications for authority to accept
permissible investments, and praying that because of this development, the
proceedings be suspended. proceedings were actually suspended twice
Pending SC ruling, Avon sought approval to find a Filipino buyer to sell 30% of
its equity to so the BOI decision can be affirmed. This was approved by Minister
Tuvera and opposed to by R as a gratuitous conclusion + President still
waiting on NEDA recommendation on the public hearings + reducing Avons
holdings did not resolve the economic issues they raised.

ISSUE state all issues first. Bold the one related to the subject
1. WON BOI committed GAOD in overruling Rs objections? NO

RATIO Bold important words or phrases

1. WON BOI committed GAOD in overruling Rs objections? NO
The legal presumption is that official duty has been duly performed
o a presumption respecting the correctness of the acts and
determinations of administrative agencies like the BOI, that the
policy has been adopted for courts not to interfere therewith
unless there be a clear showing of arbitrary action or palpable
and serious error.
(c)ourts of justice will not generally interfere with purely
administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of
government agencies unless there is a clear showing that the latter
acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or when they have
acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may
amount to an excess or lack of jurisdiction
Though prima facie, when all the facts were not yet laid out, the injunction may
have had basis, now theres no basis for the injunction.
Sec. 7: creates impression that actual application needs to be published, other
parts of the section make clear that it is the notice of the application that is
meant to be so published and posted.
o Sub-head or title clearly refers to Notice.
o Last sentence also mentions Notices
o Description of whats needed: the name of the applicant, the business in
which it is engaged or proposes to engage or invest, and such other data
and information as may be required by the Board of Investments"
abstract/summary is what is needed (no need to itemize like this if it were
the actual application needed.
While the notice DID leave out the business the corps are engaged in, its not
serious enough an omission to negate the notice completely

DECISION bullet points. Dont copy and paste

 [SUBJECT Admin] | [TOPIC Absolutely No Evidence] 3
[Digest maker Kyle Subido]

CA TRO nullified and set aside

APPENDIX
SEC. 7. Publication and Posting of Notices. Immediately after the filing of any
application under this act, the Secretary of the Board of Investments shall publish the
same at the expense of the application once a week for thre consecutive weeks in the
Official Gazette and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province or
city where the applicant has its principal office and post copies of said application in
conspicuous places, in the office of the Board of Investments or in the building where
said office is located, setting forth in such copies the name of the applicant, the
business in which it is engaged or proposes to engaged or invest, and such other data
and information as maybe required by the Board of Investments. No approval or
certificate shall be valid without the publication and posting of notices as herein
provided.

Delete gray parts