Case Digest: ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Cp., Ltd.

G.R. No. 169332

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Cp., Ltd.

FACTS:

ABS-CBN filed a petition for review an arbitrator’s decision in the Court of Appeals. Respondent, on the other hand, filed a petition for confirmation in the RTC.

RULING:

It is the Regional Trial Court (formerly Court of First Instance) that has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, including that of a petition to vacate an arbitral award provided the ground of its appeal fall under those which are enumerated under Section 24 of RA876. In cases other than that, a petition for review under Rule 43(questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law) or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (should the arbitrator have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of  jurisdiction) may be availed of in the Court of Appeals.

The Court, however, ruled that the petitioner cannot avail of the remedies alternatively or simultaneously. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright.

The Court added that although petitioner’s position on the judicial remedies available was correct, the latter’s attempt to avail of two remedies---that under Rule 43 and Rule 65--- is impermissible. It is not the duty of the Court to identify which rule the petition should fall.

The Court dismissed the petition.

Read More

Case Digest: Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR

G.R. No 101083

Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR

July 30, 1993

Petitioner minors, represented by their parents, contended that the granting of the TLAs (Timber License Agreement) by respondent DENR was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. RTC dismissed the class suit on the ff grounds: 1)lack of cause of action; 2)the issue involved a  political question and 3)the relief sought would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioners.

The Court held that petitioners had the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of the suit. The Court recognized the beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, citing provisions in the Constitution of the rights of the people specifically that of Sec 16, Art 2, which is the specific legal right invoked by the petitioners. The Court also stressed the correlative duty of the DENR as the branch of government tasked with the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural resources (E.O. No. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987). Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty to protect and advance the said right.

As to the issue on political question, the Court held that the case should be afforded judicial review, citing second paragraph of sec1, Article VIII of the Constitution which states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The Court may take cognizance of cases involving issues on ‘grave abuse of discretion’.

The Court also assailed the ruling of the lower court, invoking the non-impariment clause, reasoning , for one, that the respondents did not even raise the said issue. Granting for argment’s sake that respondents did, the TLA is not a contract but is only a license or a privilege which may be subject to withdrawal by proper authority if deemed necessary for the general welfare and betterment of the country.

The Court granted the petition, allowing petitioners to amend complaint against TLA holders.

Read More