8/13/2019 Puyat and PAL

1/3

Puyat et. al. vs. de Guzman and Acero, et. al.G.R. No. L-51122 March 25, 19 2

!acts"

International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) held an election for eleven Directors.Justice Estanislao Fernandez (Assembl man Fernandez)! a member of Interim "atasan#Pambansa! is one of the elected Directors. $hen a %uo &arranto proceedin# %uestionin# theelection &as instituted b the petitioners in the 'ecurities and E chan#e Commission ('EC)!Assembl man Fernandez appeared as counsel for the respondents! to &hich the petitionerob ected on Constitutional #rounds * 'ection ++! Article ,III of the +- / Constitution

provided that no Assembl man could appear as counsel before0 an administrative bod 1.'ince 'EC &as an administrative bod and the cited Constitutional prohibition bein# clear!Fernandez did not continue his appearance for respondent.

2he 'EC found that Assembl man Fernandez had purchased +3 shares of IPI forP433.33 upon re%uest of Acero! one of the respondents. Follo&in# the notarization of theshares purchased! the Assembl man Fernandez filed a motion for intervention in the 'ECcase as the o&ner of +3 IPI shares alle#in# le#al interest in the matter in liti#ation. 'EC#ranted the leave to intervene on the basis of Assembl man Fernandez5 o&nership of the said+3 shares. "ecause of this order! the petitioners then filed an instant petition for certiorariand Prohibition &ith Preliminar In unction.

#ssue"In intervenin# in the 'EC case! is Assembl man Fernandez! in effect! appearin# as

counsel before an administrative bod in contravention of the Constitutional provision6

$eld"7es! Assembl man Fernandez is! in intervenin# in the 'EC case! in effect! appearin#

as counsel before an administrative bod 2he 'upreme Court ('C) reversed and set aside theorder of the 'EC and held that the intervention of Assembl man Fernandez in the 'EC casefalls &ithin the ambit of the prohibition contained in 'ection ++! Article ,III of the +- /Constitution.

8rdinaril ! b virtue of the motion to intervene! Assembl man Fernandez cannot besaid to be appearin# as counsel as he is appearin# for the protection of his o&nership sharesin IPI in matters of liti#ation. 9o&ever! in this case! the 'C found that the shares he o&ns is

merel +3 shares out of 4:4!;intervention> &ould ma?e theconstitutional provision ineffective because all an Assembl man need to do! if he &ants toinfluence an administrative bod is to ac%uire a minimal participation in the >interest> of theclient and then >intervene> in the proceedin#s.

8/13/2019 Puyat and PAL

2/3

PAL vs. %&v&l Aeronaut&cs 'oard and Grand #nternat&onal A&r(ays, #nc.G.R. No. 11952 March 2), 199*

!acts"

8n @ovember 4

8n December 43! +--

Does the Con#ress! in enactin# epublic Act :! have dele#ated the authorit to authorize theoperation of domestic air transport services to the respondent "oard! such that Con#ressional mandatefor the approval of such authorit is no lon#er necessar 6

RA #/

7es! the Con#ress has the dele#ated authorit to authorize the operation of domestic air transportservices to the respondent board. Con#ress has #ranted certain administrative a#encies the po&er to#rant licenses for! or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. 2o this effect! the CivilAeronautics "oard has the authorit to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and @ecessit ! or2emporar 8peratin# Permit to a domestic air transport operator! &ho! thou#h not possessin# ale#islative franchise! meets all the other re%uirements prescribed b the la&. 'uch re%uirements &ereenumerated in 'ection 4+ of .A. :.

2here is nothin# in the la& nor in the Constitution! &hich indicates that a le#islative franchise is anindispensable re%uirement for an entit to operate as a domestic air transport operator. Althou#h'ection ++ of Article II reco#nizes Con#ressG control over an franchise! certificate or authorit tooperate a public utilit ! it does not mean Con#ress has e clusive authorit to issue the same.Franchises issued b Con#ress are not re%uired before each and ever public utilit ma operate. Inman instances! Con#ress has seen it fit to dele#ate this function to #overnment a#encies! specialized

particularl in their respective areas of public service.

8/13/2019 Puyat and PAL

3/3

Con#ress! b #ivin# the respondent "oard the po&er to issue permits for the operation of domestictransport services! has dele#ated to the said bod the authorit to determine the capabilit andcompetence of a prospective domestic air transport operator to en#a#e in such venture. 2his is not aninstance of transformin# the respondent "oard into a mini*le#islative bod ! &ith unbridled authoritto choose &ho should be #iven authorit to operate domestic air transport services.

2o be valid! the dele#ation itself must be circumscribed b le#islative restrictions! nota >rovin# commission> that &ill #ive the dele#ate unlimited le#islative authorit . Itmust not be a dele#ation >runnin# riot> and >not canalized &ith ban?s that ?eep itfrom overflo&in#.> 8ther&ise! the dele#ation is in le#al effect an abdication ofle#islative authorit ! a total surrender b the le#islature of its prero#atives in favor ofthe dele#ate. 20

Con#ress! in this instance! has set specific limitations on ho& such authorit should be e ercised as'ection < of .A. @o. :! as amended! sets out the #uidelines or policies to be follo&ed. oreimportantl ! the said la& has enumerated the re%uirements to determine the competenc of a

prospective operator to en#a#e in the public service of air transportation. Furthermore! the procedure

for the processin# of the application of a Certificate of Public Convenience and @ecessit had beenestablished to ensure the &eedin# out of those entities that are not deservin# of public service.

In sum! the 'upreme Court directed respondent Civil Aeronautics "oard to continue hearin# theapplication of respondent rand International Air&a s! Inc. for the issuance of a Certificate of PublicConvenience and @ecessit .