Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MINERS ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192088 2012-10-09	INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In accordance with the foregoing implementing regulations, and in furtherance of the Asset Purchase Agreement[64] (APA), PSALM, NPC and K-Water executed on April 28, 2010 an Operations and Maintenance Agreement[65] (O & M Agreement) for the administration, rehabilitation, operation, preservation and maintenance, by K-Water as the eventual owner of the AHEPP, of the Non-Power Components meaning the Angat Dam, non-power equipment, facilities, installations, and appurtenant devices and structures, including the water sourced from the Angat Reservoir.
	GR Nos. 152613 & 152628 2009-11-20	APEX MINING CO. v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Exploration Permit 133 was issued in favor of MMC on 10 March 1986, when Presidential Decree No. 463 was still the governing law. Presidential Decree No. 463 pertains to the old system of exploration, development and utilization of natural resources through "license, concession or lease."[20]
	GR Nos. 152613 & 152628 2009-11-20	APEX MINING CO. v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indubitably, without the scrutiny by the government agency as to the qualifications of the would-be transferee of an exploration permit, the same may fall into the hands of non-qualified entities, which would be counter-productive to the development of the mining industry. It cannot be overemphasized that the exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources are matters vital to the public interest and the general welfare; hence, their regulation must be of utmost concern to the government, since these natural resources are not only critical to the nation's security, but they also ensure the country's survival as a viable and sovereign republic.[24]
	GR No. 138810 2004-09-29	BATANGAS CATV v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
SECTION 3. Only persons, associations, partnerships, corporations or cooperatives, granted a Provisional Authority or Certificate of Authority by the Commission may install, operate and maintain a cable television system or render cable television service within a service area." Clearly, it has been more than two decades now since our national government, through the NTC, assumed regulatory power over the CATV industry. Changes in the political arena did not alter the trend. Instead, subsequent presidential issuances further reinforced the NTC's power. Significantly, President Marcos and President Aquino, in the exercise of their legislative power, issued P.D. No. 1512, E.O. No. 546 and E.O. No. 205. Hence, they have the force and effect of statutes or laws passed by Congress.[24] That the regulatory power stays with the NTC is also clear from President Ramos' E.O. No. 436 mandating that the regulation and supervision of the CATV industry shall remain vested "solely" in the NTC. Black's Law Dictionary defines "sole" as "without another or others."[25] The logical conclusion, therefore, is that in light of the above laws and E.O. No. 436, the NTC exercises regulatory power over CATV operators to the exclusion of other bodies.