Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DANTE V. LIBAN v. RICHARD J. GORDON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191672 2014-11-25	DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. CHAIRMAN BERSAMIN, J.
Apart from violating the prohibition against holding multiple offices, Duque's designation as member of the governing Boards of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF impairs the independence of the CSC. Under Section 17,[42] Article VII of the Constitution, the President exercises control over all government offices in the Executive Branch. An office that is legally not under the control of the President is not part of the Executive Branch.[43] The Court has aptly explained in Rufino v. Endriga:[44]
	GR No. 193462 2014-02-04	DENNIS A.B. FUNA v. MANILA ECONOMIC PEREZ, J.
stock.[101] In a non-stock corporation, like the MECO, jurisprudence teaches that the controlling interest of the government is affirmed when "at least majority of the members are government officials holding such membership by appointment or designation"[102] or there is otherwise "substantial participation of the government in the selection" of the corporation's governing board.[103] In this case, the petitioner argues that the government has controlling interest in the MECO because it is the President of the Philippines that indirectly appoints the directors of the corporation.[104] The petitioner claims that the President
	GR No. 177131 2011-06-07	BOY SCOUTS OF PHILIPPINES v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In a letter [12] dated July 3, 2000, Director Crescencio S. Sunico, Corporate Audit Officer (CAO) I of the COA, furnished the BSP with a copy of the Memorandum [13] dated June 20, 2000 of Atty. Santos M. Alquizalas, the COA General Counsel. In said Memorandum, the COA General Counsel opined that Republic Act No. 7278 did not supersede the Court's ruling in Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, even though said law eliminated the substantial government participation in the selection of members of the National Executive Board of the BSP. The Memorandum further provides: Analysis of the said case disclosed that the substantial government participation is only one (1) of the three (3) grounds relied upon by the Court in the resolution of the case. Other considerations include the character of the BSP's purposes and functions which has a public aspect and the statutory designation of the BSP as a "public corporation". These grounds have not been deleted by R.A. No. 7278. On the contrary, these were strengthened as evidenced by the amendment made relative to BSP's purposes stated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 7278.
	GR No. 166355 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. LUIS J. MORALES BRION, J.
Expocorp is a private corporation as found by the Sandiganbayan. It was not created by a special law but was incorporated under the Corporation Code and was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.[16] It is also not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Although BCDA, which owned 999,991 shares[17] of its shares, was one of Expocorp's original incorporators, the Board of Directors of Expocorp allowed Global to buy 1,229,998 of its unused and unsubscribed shares two months after its incorporation. With the BCDA as a minority stockholder, Expocorp cannot be characterized as a government-owned or controlled corporation. In Dante V. Liban, et al. v. Richard J. Gordon,[18] we pointedly said: A government-owned or controlled corporation must be owned by the government, and in the case of a stock corporation, at least a majority of its capital stock must be owned by the government.
	GR No. 191560 2011-03-29	LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL v. ALEJANDRO S. URRO BRION, J.
Quo warranto is a remedy to try disputes with respect to the title to a public office. Generally, quo warranto proceedings are commenced by the Government as the proper party-plaintiff. However, under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an individual may commence such action if he claims to be entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by another. We stress that the person instituting the quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must show that he is entitled to the office in dispute; otherwise, the action may be dismissed at any stage.[65] Emphatically, Section 6, Rule 66 of the same Rules requires the petitioner to state in the petition his right to the public office and the respondent's unlawful possession of the disputed position.
	GR No. 175352 2011-01-18	DANTE V. LIBAN v. RICHARD J. GORDON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the Decision,[4] the Court held that respondent did not forfeit his seat in the Senate when he accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, as "the office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution."[5] The Decision, however, further declared void the PNRC Charter "insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation" and consequently ruled that "the PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation Code and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it wants to be a private corporation."[6] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows: