Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY v. CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185544 2015-01-13	LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA v. COA LEONEN, J.
In PHIVIDEC, this court found the engagement by PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority, a government-owned and controlled corporation, of Atty. Cesilo Adaza's legal services to be unauthorized for the corporation's failure to secure the written conformity of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and the Commission on Audit.[79] Citing the provisions of Office of the President Memorandum Circular No. 9, this court ruled that: [i]t was only with the enactment of Memorandum Circular No. 9 in 1998 that an exception to the general prohibition was allowed for the first time since P.D. No. 1415 was enacted in 1978. However, indispensable conditions precedent were imposed before any hiring of private lawyer could be effected. First, private counsel can be hired only in exceptional cases. Second, the GOCC must first secure the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, before any hiring can be done. And third, the written concurrence of the COA must also be secured prior to the hiring.[80] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 169453 2006-12-06	CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION v. PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY CARPIO MORALES, J.
On September 1, 1999, Branch 38 of the Misamis Oriental RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of PHIVIDEC.[10] Due, however, to the unauthorized engagement by PHIVIDEC of the legal services of a private lawyer, the expropriation case was dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of a similar petition through a proper legal officer or counsel.[11]
	GR NO. 139554 2006-07-21	ARMITA B. RUFINO v. BALTAZAR N. ENDRIGA CARPIO, J.
Laws that create public offices or GOCCs are no different from other statutes in that they are all binding on the Chief Executive. Indeed, while Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes the law, executive power generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws.[76] The corresponding task of the Chief Executive is to see that every government office is managed and maintained properly by the persons in charge of it in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. Corollary to these powers is the power to promulgate rules and issuances that would ensure a more efficient management of the executive branch, for so long as such issuances are not contrary to law.[77]
	GR NO. 155650 2006-07-20	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CA CARPIO, J.
The reason for the rule does not apply in the case of exemptions running to the benefit of the government itself or its agencies. In such case the practical effect of an exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by government in the course of its operations. For these reasons, provisions granting exemptions to government agencies may be construed liberally, in favor of non tax-liability of such agencies.[19]
	GR No. 146478 2004-07-30	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION CALLEJO, SR., J.
On August 26, 1993, the petitioner's General Manager Rogelio A. Dayan, issued a Notice of Award of the project to the respondents. The approval of the reclamation project was conditioned upon the completion of the fendering of Pier 2 of the San Fernando port and the port of Tobaco, and was contained in the notice of award.[6] The respondents agreed to this condition.[7] The petitioner instructed the consortium to prepare a supplemental agreement and, thereafter, to transmit the same, including the documents specified therein.