Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VETERANS FEDERATION OF PHILIPPINES v. ANGELO T. REYES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192117 2012-09-18	ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN TAGALOG ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION CARPIO, J.
There are, however, several exceptions to the requirement of publication. First, an interpretative regulation does not require publication in order to be effective.[80] The applicability of an interpretative regulation "needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed."[81] It "add[s] nothing to the law" and "do[es] not affect the substantial rights of any person."[82] Second, a regulation that is merely internal in nature does not require publication for its effectivity.[83] It seeks to regulate only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the general public.[84] Third, a letter of instruction issued by an administrative agency concerning rules or guidelines to be followed by subordinates in the performance of their duties does not require publication in order to be effective.[85]
	GR No. 177131 2011-06-07	BOY SCOUTS OF PHILIPPINES v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In support of its arguments, the COA cites The Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) v. Reyes, [30] wherein the Court held that among the reasons why the VFP is a public corporation is that its charter, Republic Act No. 2640, designates it as one. Furthermore, the COA quotes the Court as saying in that case: In several cases, we have dealt with the issue of whether certain specific activities can be classified as sovereign functions. These cases, which deal with activities not immediately apparent to be sovereign functions, upheld the public sovereign nature of operations needed either to promote social justice or to stimulate patriotic sentiments and love of country.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
In the same vein, the creation of the PTC is not justified by the President's power of control. Control is essentially the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter.[47] Clearly, the power of control is entirely different from the power to create public offices. The former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws.
	GR No. 178160 2009-02-26	BASES CONVERSION v. COA CARPIO, J.
The Court is not impressed. The State is not estopped from correcting a public officer's erroneous application of a statute, and an unlawful practice, no matter how long, cannot give rise to any vested right.[38]