Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192088 2012-10-09	INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to the issue of nationality requirement in the appropriation of water resources under the Constitution, MWSS cites the case of Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System[15] which interpreted paragraph 2, Sec. 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution providing that "[i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos" to imply "a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement x xx and is per se judicially enforceable." In this case, the AHEPP is in dire danger of being wholly-owned by a Korean corporation which probably merely considers it as just another business opportunity, and as such cannot be expected to observe and ensure the smooth facilitation of the more critical purposes of water supply and irrigation.
	GR No. 176579 2011-06-28	WILSON P. GAMBOA v. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES CARPIO, J.
x x x as the annual disclosure reports, also referred to as Form 20-K reports x x x which PLDT submitted to the New York Stock Exchange for the period 2003-2005, revealed that First Pacific and several other foreign entities breached the constitutional limit of 40 percent ownership as early as 2003. x x x"[7]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While all the provisions of the 1987 Constitution are presumed self-executing,,[132] there are some which this Court has declared not judicially enforceable, Article XIII being one,[133] particularly Section 3 thereof, the nature of which, this Court, in Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[134] has described to be not self-actuating:Thus, the constitutional mandates of protection to labor and security of tenure may be deemed as self-executing in the sense that these are automatically acknowledged and observed without need for any enabling legislation. However, to declare that the constitutional provisions are enough to guarantee the full exercise of the rights embodied therein, and the realization of ideals therein expressed, would be impractical, if not unrealistic. The espousal of such view presents the dangerous tendency of being overbroad and exaggerated. The guarantees of "full protection to labor" and "security of tenure", when examined in isolation, are facially unqualified, and the broadest interpretation possible suggests a blanket shield in favor of labor against any form of removal regardless of circumstance. This interpretation implies an unimpeachable right to continued employment-a utopian notion, doubtless-but still hardly within the contemplation of the framers. Subsequent legislation is still needed to define the parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure the protection and promotion, not only the rights of the labor sector, but of the employers' as well. Without specific and pertinent legislation, judicial bodies will be at a loss, formulating their own conclusion to approximate at least the aims of the Constitution.
	GR NO. 167324 2007-07-17	TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution are considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation for their enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law can be easily nullified by the inaction of Congress.[18] However, some provisions have already been categorically declared by this Court as non self-executing.
	GR No. 132527 2005-07-29	COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION v. RUBEN TORRES AZCUNA, J.
Petitioners cite Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS[31] which, however, does not apply. That case dealt with the policy enunciated under the second paragraph of Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution,[32] applicable to the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions "covering the national economy and patrimony," which is different from the policy invoked in this petition, specifically that of giving preference to Filipino materials and labor found under Section 12 of the same Article of the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied).