2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v.

poration v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

-40% -40% -40%

price drop

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2009 > February 2009 Decisions >
G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Investments:
Review

G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of

Investments

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 175787 : February 4, 2009]

PHILLIPS SEAFOOD (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD

OF INVESTMENTS, Respondent.

DECISION

TINGA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, assailing two related resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.

89327. The Resolution 2 dated 24 May 2006 dismissed petitioner's Petition for Review
under Rule 43 and its omnibus motion seeking to amend the petition and to suspend

the period for filing a reply. The Resolution 3 dated 24 November 2006 denied
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier resolution.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 1/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
SEARCH FOR MORE The following factual antecedents are matters of record.
latest supreme court decisions
High Quality Engineerin
general construction company Engine Reconditioning S
case law decisions Ad Backed 30+ years of exp
Ad industry BMS Machine Shop
supreme court cases in order facebook.com

look up court cases Learn more

SEARCH FOR MORE

latest supreme court decisions
general construction company
Petitioner Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged
in the export of processed crabmeat and other seafood products. Petitioner was
incorporated on 20 October 1992 and registered under its previous corporate name of
Phillips Seafood Masbate, Inc.

case law decisions

supreme court cases in order
look up court cases
SEARCH FOR MORE
latest supreme court decisions
On 08 January 1993, petitioner registered with respondent Bureau of Investments
(BOI) as an existing and expansion producer of soft shell crabs and other seafood
products, on a non-pioneer status under Certificate of Registration No. EP 93-219. 4
Petitioner's plant was situated in Piña, Masbate, while its administrative office was
then located in Cebu City before it was subsequently relocated to Calong-Calong,
Airport Subdivision, Bacolod City.
Petitioner was granted an Income Tax Holiday (ITH) for six (6) years beginning July

general construction company 1993 to July 1999, 5 for locating in a less-developed area in accordance with Article

40 6 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 226, otherwise known as The Omnibus

case law decisions
Investments Code of 1987.

supreme court cases in order

look up court cases Petitioner used to supply semi-processed raw materials to Phillips Seafood (Phils.),
Inc. (PSPI), an affiliate corporation also engaged in the export of seafood products,
before the latter's closure due to financial difficulties. On 21 July 1997, petitioner
acquired the right to use the canning facility of PSPI in Bacolod City during the
February-2009 Jurisprudence temporary suspension of PSPI's operations. Unable to recover from its financial
reverses, PSPI eventually stopped operations.

On 14 December 1998, petitioner acquired the title to the plant, facilities, equipment
A.C. No. 7056 : February 11,
2009 - PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and other assets belonging to PSPI, including its picking facilities in Cebu City. 7 In

and EDGARDO C. GARCIA, October 1999, petitioner relocated its plant and office in Bacolod City to Barangay

Complainants, v. ATTY. Banica, Roxas City. Petitioner informed respondent BOI of said transfer. 8 Petitioner
ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., also filed with respondent BOI an application for registration of its new plant having
Respondent. an expanded capacity of 155,205 kilograms a year.

A.C. No. 5338 - Eugenia Honda CR-V V Diesel L

Mendoza v. Atty. Victor V.
Ad Built with a powerful engi
Deciembre
every drive with power and st
Ad
A.C. No. 7084 - Conrado G. Honda Cars Philippines
Fernandez v. Atty. Maria Angelica
P. De Ramos-Villalon Open

A.C. No. 7181 - Maria Angalan, In a letter dated 18 November 1999, respondent BOI informed petitioner that the
et al. v. Atty. Lonido C. Delante latter's ITH under Certificate of Registration No. EP

A.M. No. 08-12-357-MCTC - 93-219 would be extended until 12 August 2000, pursuant to Article 39 (a) (1) (ii) 9
Dropping from the rolls, Ms of Executive Order No. 226. 10
Paciencia E. Ajanab etc.
On 06 January 2000, respondent BOI granted petitioner's application for registration
of its new plant in Roxas City under Certificate of Registration No. VI EP 2000-002.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 2/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
A.M. No. CA-09-47-J Formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-121-CA-J -
Genaro Santiago III v. Justice
Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. etc.
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1688
Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1763-
MTJ - Danilo David S. Mariano v.
Judge Jose P. Nacional
A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC - In re:
undated letter of Mr. Louis C.
Biraogo petitioner in Biraogo V.
Nograles and Limkaichong, G.R.
No. 179120.
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733 - Ma.
Theresa G. Winternitz and Raquel
L. Gonzales v. Judge Lizabeth
Gutierrez-Torres
A.M. No. P-04-1831 Formerly
OCA IPI No. 03-1690-P
Abdulmaid K. Muin v. Samuel A.
Avestruz, Jr. etc.
A.M No. P-06-2200 Formerly
OCA IPI No. 06-2-51-MTCC
Office of the Court Administrator
v. Marlon Roque, CoC Br. 3 MTCC
Angeles City and Anita G. Nunag,
CoC, OCC MTCC Angeles City
A.M. No. P-07-2304 - Emilia
Marinas v. Terencio G. Florendo,
et al.
A.M. No. P-07-2391 - Jennifer
B. Domingo v. Silvino R. Malana,
Jr. et al.
A.M. No. P-07-2392 Formerly
OCA IPI No. 07-2579-P
Rosalinda C. Aguilar v. Ronberto
V. Balino etc.
A.M. No. P-08-2453 Formerly
OCA IPI No. 08-2764-P
Florencio R. Bernabe v. Zenaida
C. Grimaldo, etc.
A.M. No. P-08-2521 Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2329-P
Christopher D. Manaog v. Arnel
Jose A. Rubio, et al.
A.M. No. P-09-2598 Formerly
A.M. No. 08-3-65-MCTC - Report
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173
Petitioner's registration was categorized as a new producer on a non-pioneer status
with an ITH for four years beginning January 2000. 11
On 22 June 2000, respondent BOI approved the registration of petitioner as a "New
Producer of Processed Fish" under another Certificate of Registration No. XI EP 2000-
74 with an ITH for four years beginning April 2000. 12
On 04 May 2000, petitioner filed with respondent BOI an application for an ITH for
taxable year 1999 under Certificate of Registration No. EP 93-219. It filed another
application for an ITH for the year 2000 under Certificate of Registration No. VI EP
2000-002 covering its crabmeat products and under Certificate of Registration No. XI
EP 20000-74 covering its processed fish products. ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
Petitioner changed its corporate name from PS-Masbate to its current name of Phillips
Seafood (Philippines) Corporation, which was approved by respondent BOI on 16
February 2001. 13
In a letter dated 25 September 2003, respondent BOI informed petitioner that the
ITH previously granted would be applicable only to the period from 13 August 1999 to
21 October 1999 or before petitioner's transfer to a "not less-developed area." 14
Petitioner wrote respondent BOI requesting for a reconsideration of its decision. 15
-
On 03 May 2004, petitioner received by fax BOI's letter denying its motion for
reconsideration. 16 Petitioner elevated the matter to the Office of the President, which
dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in a Decision dated
22 September 2004. 17 The Office of the President likewise denied petitioner's motion
- for reconsideration in an Order dated 14 March 2005. 18 Petitioner received a copy of
the order on 01 April 2005.
On 05 April 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals,
questioning the dismissal of its appeal before the Office of the President. The petition
argued that the executive power of control over the acts of officials under the Office
of the President is superior to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over
decisions of quasi-judicial agencies under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 19
After respondent BOI filed its comment on the petition, petitioner filed an omnibus
motion asking for leave to file an amended petition to counter the issues raised in the
comment for the first time and to suspend the period for filing a reply. 20
On 24 May 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the first assailed resolution denying
petitioner's omnibus motion and dismissing its Petition for Review . The appellate
court denied petitioner's omnibus motion on the ground that the same was filed with
- intent to delay the case. Simultaneously, the appellate court dismissed the Petition
for Review for having been filed out of time as petitioner opted to appeal to the Office
of the President instead of filing a Rule 43 petition to the Court of Appeals within the
reglementary period. On 24 November 2006, the Court of Appeals issued the second
assailed resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
-
Hence, the instant petition anchored on the following arguments: (1) petitioner's
omnibus motion asking for the amendment of its Petition for Review was filed to
avoid the multiplicity of suits; (2) the executive power of control over the acts of
department secretaries must not be rendered illusory by rules of procedure; and (3)
petitioner is entitled to the ITH.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
-
3/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
on the financial audit conducted
Honda CR-V V Diesel L
in the MCTC-Maddela, Quirino
Ad Built with a powerful engi
A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2027 - every drive with power and st
Ad
Marietta Duque v. Judge
Honda Cars Philippines
Crisostomo L. Garrido

Open
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093
Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2312-
RTJ - Sylvia Santos v. Judge In the main, petitioner argues that the review by the Office of the President of the

Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua etc. decisions of respondent BOI must be allowed; otherwise, the President's
constitutional power to review the decisions of department secretaries will be

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2103 rendered illusory if said decisions may be reviewed only by the Court of Appeals.

Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2664-

The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right - it is a statutory
RTJ - Edna S.V. Ogka Benito v.
privilege and of statutory origin and, therefore, available only if granted or provided
Rasad G. Balindong etc.
by statute. It may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance

with, the provisions of the law. 21 Thus, in determining the appellate procedure
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2137
governing administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or regulatory functions
Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2530-
such as respondent BOI, a perusal of the legislative enactments creating them is
RTJ - Heirs of Sps. Jose &
imperative.
Concepcion Ologra etc. v. Judge
Rolindo D. Beldia, Jr. & Branch The BOI was created by virtue of E.O. No. 226 at the time when then President
Clerk of Court Mary Emilie T. Corazon Aquino was exercising legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution
Villanueva etc. Executive Order (E.O.) No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investments Acts
of 1987, laid down the powers and duties of respondent both as a policy-making body
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2163 and a regulatory agency tasked with facilitating the growth of investment in the
Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2717- country. Article 7, E.O. No. 226 directs respondent to act as a collegial body when
RTJ - Edgardo D. Areola (A.K.A. exercising its duties and powers. In addition to its administrative or policy-making
Mohammad Kahdaffy) v. Judge and regulatory functions, the BOI is also empowered to promulgate rules and
Bayani Y. Ilano etc. regulations to implement the provisions of E.O. No. 226. 22

G.R. NOS. 119660-61 - Pat. As a policy-making body, the BOI is charged with the duties, among others, of

Edgardo Herrera Y Baltoribio et preparing an annual investment priorities plan that gives incentives to specific

al. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al. activities, 23 of recommending to the Bureau of Immigration the entry of foreign

nationals for employment purposes, 24 and of inspecting registered enterprises for

G.R. No. 127327 - Liberata compliance purposes. 25
Ambito et al. v. People of the
Philippines and CA Among the regulatory functions of the BOI are the processing of applications for

registration, 26 the cancellation of registration or suspension of the enjoyment of

G.R. No. 141835 - Central certain incentives under E.O. No. 226, 27 and the resolution of controversies arising
Bank of the Philippines v.
from the implementation of E.O. No. 226. 28 There is no doubt that the resolution of
Citytrust Banking Corporation
petitioner's claim that it is entitled to the ITH in the instant case calls for the exercise
of the BOI's regulatory functions.
G.R. No. 142525 - Federal
Builders, Inc. v. Daiichi Properties E.O. No. 226 also provides for various remedies from the action or decision of the

and Development, Inc. BOI, depending on the nature of the controversy. These remedies, which are
interspersed among the provisions of E.O. No. 226, are as follows:

G.R. No. 143538 - Vicente A.

Art. 7. Powers and Duties of the Board. - The Board shall be responsible for the
Miel v. Jesus A. Malindog
regulation and promotion of investments in the Philippines. x x x The presence of four
(4) governors shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of four (4)
G.R. No. 146157 - La
governors in a meeting validly held shall be necessary to exercise its powers and
Campana Development
perform its duties, which shall be as follows:
Corporation v. Development Bank
of the Philippines

(4) After due hearing, decide controversies concerning the implementation of the
G.R. No. 146949 - Narciso C.
relevant books of this Code that may arise between registered enterprises or
Loguinsa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
investors therein and government agencies, within thirty (30) days after the
(5th Division)
controversy has been submitted for decision: Provided, That the investor or the

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 4/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 150141, 157359 and
158644 - Agencia Exquisite of
Bohol, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue/Commissioner
of Internal Revenue v. Agencia
Exquisite of Bohol, Inc./ G.R. No.
158644(Exquisite Pawnshop
Jewelry Inc. v. CIR)
G.R. No. 150873 - Zenaida V.
Sazon v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 152413 - Barceliza P.
Capistrano v. Darryl Limcuando,
et al.
G.R. No. 156101 - Heirs of
Jose T. Calo etc. v. Nona Calo &
Heirs of Romualdo Calo etc.
G.R. No. 156541 - Luz Cajigas
and Larry Cajigas v. People of the
Philippines & Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 159310 - Camilo F.
Borromeo v. Antonieta
Descallar
G.R. No. 159578 - Rogelia
Daclag, et al. v. Elino Macahilig,
et al.
G.R. No. 161793 - Edward
Kenneth Ngo Te v. Rowena Ong
Gutierrez Yu-Te, et al.
G.R. No. 162324
Corporation-Flour Division
SFI Feeds Division v. Kasapian ng
Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-RFM
(MAMPI-NAFLU-KMU)
Sandigan at Ugnayan
Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-SFI
(SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU)
G.R. NOS. 162335 & 162605 -
Severino Manotok IV, et al. v.
Heirs of Homer L. Barque etc.
G.R. No. 163103 - Charlie
Vios, et al. v. Manuel Pantanggo,
Jr.
G.R. No. 164015 - Ramon A.
Albert v. Sandiganbayan, et al.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173
registered enterprise may appeal the decision of the Board within thirty (30)
days from receipt thereof to the President;
xxx
Art. 36. Appeal from Board's Decision. - Any order or decision of the Board shall be
final and executory after thirty (30) days from its promulgation. Within the said
period of thirty (30) days, said order or decision may be appealed to the
& Office of the President. Where an appeal has been filed, said order or decision shall
be final and executory ninety (90) days after the perfection of the appeal, unless
reversed.
xxx
Art. 50. Cause for Cancellation of Certificate of Authority or Payment of Fine. - A
violation of any of the requirements set forth in Article 49 of the terms and conditions
which the Board may impose shall be sufficient cause to cancel the certificate of
authority issued pursuant to this Book and/or subject firms to the payment of fines in
accordance with the rules and regulations issued by the Board: x x x Provided,
further, That where the issuance of said license has been irregular or contrary to law,
any person adversely affected thereby may file an action with the Regional Trial Court
where said alien or foreign business organization resides or has its principal office to
cancel said license. In such cases, no injunction shall issue without notice and
hearing; and appeals and other proceedings for review shall be filed directly
with the Supreme Court.
xxx
Art. 82. Judicial Relief. - All orders or decisions of the Board in cases involving the
O.
provisions of this Code shall immediately be executory. No appeal from the order or
decision of the Board by the party adversely affected shall stay such order or
decision: Provided, That all appeals shall be filed directly with the Supreme
Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or decision. [Emphasis
supplied]
E.O. No. 226 apparently allows two avenues of appeal from an action or decision of
the BOI, depending on the nature of the controversy. One mode is to elevate an
appeal to the Office of the President when the action or decision pertains to either of
these two instances: first, in the decisions of the BOI over controversies concerning
the implementation of the relevant provisions of E.O No. 226 that may arise between
- RFM registered enterprises or investors and government agencies under Article 7; 29 and
and second, in an action of the BOI over applications for registration under the investment
priorities plan under Article 36. 30
and Another mode of review is to elevate the matter directly to judicial tribunals. For
ng instance, under Article 50, E.O. No. 226, a party adversely affected by the issuance of
a license to do business in favor of an alien or a foreign firm may file with the proper
Regional Trial Court an action to cancel said license. Then, there is Article 82, E.O.
No. 226, which, in its broad phraseology, authorizes the direct appeal to the Supreme
Court from any order or decision of respondent BOI "involving the provisions of E.O.
No. 226."
High Quality Engineerin
Engine Reconditioning S
Ad Backed 30+ years of exp
Ad industry BMS Machine Shop
facebook.com
Learn more
5/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 164580 - Norgie Cruz E.O. No. 226 contains no provision specifically governing the remedy of a party whose
y Castro v. People of the application for an ITH has been denied by the BOI in the same manner that Articles 7
Philippines and 36 thereof allow recourse to the Office of the President in certain instances.
Nevertheless, Article 82 of E.O. No. 22 is the catch-all provision allowing the appeal
G.R. No. 164687 - SM Prime to the courts from all other decisions of respondent BOI involving the other provisions
Holdings, Inc. v. Angela V. of E.O. No. 226. The intendment of the law is undoubtedly to afford immediate
Madayag judicial relief from the decision of respondent BOI, save in cases mentioned under
Articles 7 and 36.
G.R. No. 165836 - Philippine
In relation to Article 82, E.O. No. 226, Section 1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
National Bank v. Adela Sia and
Procedure expressly includes respondent BOI as one of the quasi-judicial agencies
Robert Ngo
whose judgments or final orders are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a verified
Petition for Review . Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial
G.R. NOS. 166086-92 - Eleno
agencies are now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified Petition
T. Regidor, Jr. et al. v. People of
for Review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely
the Philippines, et al.
formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for

quasi-judicial agencies. 31
G.R. No. 166260 -
Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Thus, petitioner should have immediately elevated to the Court of Appeals the denial
Company v. The Hon. CA, et al.
by respondent BOI of its application for an ITH. From the letter dated 09 October
2003 of respondent BOI, which informed petitioner that its ITH would be extended
G.R. No. 166973 - National only from 13 August 1999 to 21 October 1999, petitioner appealed to the Office of
Power Corporation v. Benjamin the President, a recourse that is not sanctioned by either the Rules of Civil Procedure
ong Co
or by the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987.

G.R. No. 167260 - The City of Petitioner cannot invoke Article 36 of E.O. No. 226 to justify its appeal to the Office of

Iloilo, Mr. Romeo V. Manikan etc. the President. Article 36, along with Article 7, which allows recourse to the Office of

v. Smart Commuications Inc. the President, applies to specific instances, namely, controversies between a
registered enterprise and a government agency and decisions concerning the

G.R. No. 167938 - Hanjin registration of an enterprise, respectively. Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. This

Heavy Insdustries & Construction enumeration is exclusive so that other controversies outside of its

Co. Ltd. v. Hon. CA, et al.

purview, including petitioner's entitlement to an ITH, can invoke only the appellate
judicial relief provided under Article 82. In the instant case, the denial of petitioner's
G.R. No. 168433 - UCPB
application for an ITH is not within the cases where the law expressly provides for
General Insurance Co., Inc. v.
appellate recourse to the Office of the President. That being the case, petitioner
Aboitiz Shipping Corp., Eagle
should have elevated its appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
Express Lines, Damco Intermodal
Services, Inc. and Pimentel Petitioner further contends that from the decision of respondent BOI, appeal to the
Customs Brokerage Co. Office of the President should be allowed; otherwise, the constitutional power of the
President to review acts of department secretaries will be rendered illusory by mere
G.R. No. 168792 - Antonio B. rules of procedure.
Gunsi, Sr. v. The Hon.
The executive power of control over the acts of department secretaries is laid down in
Commissioners, Comelec and
Section 17, Article VII 32 of the 1987 Constitution. The power of control has been
Datu Israel Sinsuat
defined as the "power of an officer 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
G.R. No. 168876 and G.R. NO.
judgment of the former for that of the latter."
172093 - Philippine Pasay Chung
Hua Academy & Emilio Ching v. Such "executive control" is not absolute. The definition of the structure of the
Servando L. Edpan/Servando L. executive branch of government, and the corresponding degrees of administrative
Edpan v. Phil. Pasay Chung Hua control and supervision is not the exclusive preserve of the executive. It may be
Academy, et al.
effectively limited by the Constitution, by law, or by judicial decisions. 33 All the more
in the matter of appellate procedure as in the instant case. Appeals are remedial in
G.R. No. 169352 -
nature; hence, constitutionally subject to this Court's rule-making power. The Rules
Commissioner of Customs v.
of Procedure was issued by the Court pursuant to
Gelmart Industries Philippines,
Inc. Section 5, Article VIII 34 of the Constitution, which expressly empowers the Supreme
Court to promulgate rules concerning the procedure in all courts.
G.R. No. 169780 - Alfredo A.
Mendros, Jr. v. Mitsubishi Motors Parenthetically, Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 18 35 expressly recognizes an
exception to the remedy of appeal to the Office of the President from the decisions of

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 6/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Phils. Corp. executive departments and agencies. Under Section 1 36 thereof, a decision or order
issued by a department or agency need not be appealed to the Office of the President
G.R. No. 170349 - Sps. when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal. In the instant
Iglecerio Mahinay, et al. v. Hon. case, the enabling law of respondent BOI, E.O. No. 226, explicitly allows for
Enrique C. Asis etc. et al./Sps. immediate judicial relief from the decision of respondent BOI involving petitioner's
Simeon Narrido, et al. v. Hon. application for an ITH. E.O. No. 226 is a law of special nature and should prevail over
Enrique C. Asis etc., et al. A.O. No. 18.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED and the
G.R. No. 170669 - Mobilia
Products Inc. v. Alan G. resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 24 May 2006 and 24 November 2006 in CA-

Demecillo, Christopher S. G.R. SP No. 89327 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Daligdig, Manuelito V. Suson, SO ORDERED.

Marciano Suarez and Antonio
Montecillo, Jr. Endnotes:

G.R. NOS. 171516-17 - 1 Rollo, pp. 10-55.

Commissioner of Customs v.
2 Id. at 57-59. Penned by J. Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and concurred
Court of Tax Appeals, Las Islas
Filipinas Food Corp. & Pat-Pro in by JJ. Marina L. Buzon, Chairperson of the Special Sixth Division, and
Overseas Co. Ltd. Aurora Santiago-Lagman.

3 Id. at 61-62.
G.R. No. 171702 - Manila
Mining Corporation v. Miguel Tan 4 Id. at 70.
Doing Business Under the name
and style of Manila Mandarin 5 Id. at 72.
Marketing
6 Art. 40. A registered enterprise regardless of nationality located in a

G.R. No. 171891 - Hernania less-developed-area included in the list prepared by the Board of

'Lani' Lopez v. Gloria Umale- Investments after consultation with the National Economic Development

Cosme Authority and other appropriate government agencies, taking into

consideration the following criteria: low per capita gross domestic product;

G.R. No. 172172 - Sps. low level of investments; high rate of unemployment and/or

Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Ong Yu v. underemployment; and low level of infrastructure development including

Baltazar Pacleb, et al. its accessibility to developed urban centers, shall be entitled to the
following incentives in addition to those provided in the preceding article:

G.R. No. 172199 - Elizabeth D.

(a) Pioneer Incentives. - An enterprise in a less-developed-
Palteng v. United Coconut
area registered with the Board under Book I of this Code,
Planters Bank
whether proposed, or an expansion of an existing venture,
shall be entitled to the incentives provided for a pioneer
G.R. No. 172628 - Coats
registered enterprise under its law of registration.
Manila Bay, Inc. v. Purita M.
Ortega (Represented by Alejandro 7 Rollo, pp. 85-86.
San Pedro, Jr.) and Marina A.
8 Id. at 92.
Montero

9 Art. 39. Incentives to Registered Enterprises. - All registered enterprises

G.R. No. 173477 - People of
shall be granted in the following incentives to the extent engaged in a
the Philippines v. Franco De
preferred area of investment:
Guzman A.K.A. Francisco V. De
Guzman, Jr. (a) Income Tax Holiday. -

(1) For six (6) years from commercial operation for pioneer
G.R. No. 173480 - People of
firms and four (4) years non-pioneer firms, new registered
the Philippines v. Ruiz Garcia y
firms shall be fully exempt from income taxes levied by the
Ruiz
National Government. Subject to such guidelines as may be
prescribed by the Board, the income tax exemption will be
G.R. No. 173976 -
extended for another year in each of the following cases: x x x
Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company, Inc. v. Eugenio (ii) utilization of indigenous raw materials at rates set by the
Penafiel etc. Board; xxx

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 7/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
10 Rollo, p. 93.
G.R. No. 174059 - People of
11 Id. at 95.
the Philippines v. Danilo Sia y
Binghay
12 Id. at 99.

G.R. No. 174065 - People of 13 Id. at 103.

the Philippines v. Rolly Canares y
Almanares 14 Id. at 114.

15 Id. at 115.
G.R. No. 174244 - Mayor
Marcel S. Pan, etc. v. Yolanda O.
16 Id. at 121.
Pena, et al.
17 Id. at 217-218.
G.R. No. 174484 - The People
18 Id. at 219-220.
of the Philippines v. Felix Ortoa Y
Obia
19 Id. at 194-216.

G.R. No. 174658 - People of 20 Id. at 262.-268.

the Philippines v. Marlon Dela
Cruz, et al. 21 De La Cruz v. Ramiscal, G.R. No. 137882, 04 February 2005, 450 SCRA
449, 457.
G.R. No. 175048 - Excellent
22 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 2.
Quality Apparel, Inc. v. Win Multi
Rich Buildenrs, Inc. etc.
23 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 1.

G.R. No. 175220 - William C. 24 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 5.
Dagan, et al. v. Philippine Racing
25 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, pars. 6, 7.
Commission (PHILRACOM),
Manila Jockey Club, Inc. and
26 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 3.
Philippine Racing Club, Inc.

27 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 8.

G.R. No. 175238 - People of
the Philippines v. Elmer Baldo Y 28 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 4.
Santain
29 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 7, par. 4

G.R. No. 175603 - People of

30 Executive Order No. 226 (1987), Art. 36.
the Philippines v. Renato Espanol
31 Namuhe v. The Ombudsman, 358 Phil. 782, 788-789 (1998).
G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips
Seafood (Philippines) Corporation 32 SEC. 17. The President shall have control of all executive departments,
v. The Board of Investments bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

33 Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Cement Manufacturers

G.R. No. 175885 and G.R. NO.
176271 - Zenaida G. Mendoza v. Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 158540, 03 August 2005, 465
SCRA 532.
Engr. Eduardo Paule, et
al./Manuel Dela Cruz v. Engr. 34 SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: x x x
Eduardo Paule, et al.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
G.R. No. 175888, 176051 and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
176222 - Suzette Nicolas y procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
Sombilon v. Alberto Romulo, et the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
al. / Jovito R. Salonga, et al. v. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
Daniel Smith, et al. / Bagong for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
Alyansang Makabayan, et al. v. courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
President Gloria Macapagal- modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
Arroyo, et al. and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 8/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 175914 - Ruby 35 Entitled "Prescribing Rules and Regulations Governing Appeals to the
Shelter Builders & Reality Devt. Office of the President of the Philippines;" Issued on 12 February 1987.
Corporation v. Hon. Pablo C.
36 SECTION 1. Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an appeal
Formaran III, et al.
to the Office of the President shall be taken within thirty (30) days from
G.R. No. 175978 - People of the receipt by the aggrieved party of the decision/resolution/order
the Philippines v. Samuel Algarme complained of or appealed from. Said appeal shall be filed with the Office
Y Bonda & Rizaldy Gelle y of the President, or with the Ministry/agency concerned, with copies
Biscocho furnished to the affected parties and, if the appeal is filed with the Office
of the President, to the Ministry/agency concerned. If the appeal is directly

G.R. No. 176246 - Premier filed with the Ministry/agency concerned, such Ministry/agency shall,

Development Bank v. Central within five (5) days from receipt thereof, transmit the appeal to the Office

Surety and Insurance Company, of the President, together with the records of the case.[Emphasis

Inc. supplied]

G.R. No. 176669 - Asset Pool A

(SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, Lepanto Ceramics Inc. &
Guoco Industries, Inc. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 176947 - Gaudencio

M. Cordora v. Comelec, et al.

G.R. No. 177583 - Lourdes

Baltazar and Edison Baltazar v.
Jaime Chua y Ibarra

G.R. No. 177720 - Eliseo

Francisco, Jr. v. People of the
Philippines

G.R. No. 177752 - People of

the Philippines v. Roberto Abay y
Trinidad

G.R. No. 177828 - Annabelle

Dela Pena, et al. v. The Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 178064 - People of

the Philippines v. Elizabeth
Cardenas

G.R. No. 178160 - Bases

Conversion and Development
Authority v. Commission on Audit

G.R. No. 178647 - General

Santos Coca-cola Plant Free
Workers Union-Tupas v. Coca-
cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. et al.

G.R. No. 178835 - Magis

Young Achievers' Learning
Center/Mrs. Violeta T. Carino v.
Adelaida P. Manalo

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 9/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 178906 - Elvira T.
Arangote v. Sps. Martin and
Lourdes S. Maglunob and Romeo
Salido

G.R. No. 178913 - Manila

Electric Company v. Hsing Nan
Tannery Phils., Inc.

G.R. No. 179462 - Pedro C.

Consulta v. People of the
Philippines

G.R. No. 179546 - Coca-Cola

Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Alan M.
Agito Regolo S. Oca III, et al.

G.R. No. 179556 - Concordia

Medel Gomez v. Corazon Medel
Alcantara

G.R. No. 179907 - Arlene N.

Lapasara v. People of the
Philippines

G.R. No. 180169 - People of

the Philippines v. Agustino
Tamolon, et al.

G.R. No. 180206 - The City

Government of Baguio City,
Represented by Reinaldo Bautista
Jr., City Mayor, et al. v. Atty.
Brain Masweng, etc., et al.

G.R. No. 180334 - Virgilio V.

Quileste v. People of the
Philippines

G.R. No. 180551 - Erwin H.

Reyes v. NLRC, et al.

G.R. No. 180666 - Leodegario

R. Basocs, Jr. and Eleazar B.
Pagalilauan v. Engr. Jose B.
Taganahan and Office of the
Ombudsman

G.R. No. 180765 - Fort

Bonifacio Development Corp. v.
Manuel M. Domingo

G.R. No. 181837 - Omar M.

Solitario Ali v. Commission on
Elections, The Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Lanao Del Sur and
Mamintal A. Adiong, Jr.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 10/11
2/18/2020 G.R. No. 175787 - Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. The Board of Investments : February 2009 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
G.R. No. 182057 - The People
of the Philippines v. Restituto C.
Valenzuela

G.R. No. 182419 - People of

the Philippines v. Wilfredo Encila
Y Sunga

G.R. No. 182426 - Zenaida

Polanco, et al. v. Carmen Cruz
Represented by her Attorney-in-
fact, Virgilio Cruz

G.R. No. 182791 - People of

the Philippines v. Elister
Basmayor y Grascilla

G.R. No. 182984 - Mariano

Nocom v. Oscar Camerino, et al.

G.R. No. 183270 - Rufina L.

Caliwan v. Mario Ocampo, et al.

G.R. No. 183385 - Evangelina

Masmud v. NLRC, et al.

G.R. No. 183702 - People of

the Philippines v. Richard Sulima
y Gallano

G.R. No. 184849 - Sps. PNP

Director Eliseo D. Dela Paz, et al.
v. Senate Committee, et al.

G.R. No. 185202 - People of

the Philippines v. Francisco Taruc
@ Taruc

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009februarydecisions.php?id=173 11/11