Quezon City University Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship M3QV+JP4, Batasan Rd, Quezon City, MetroManila,Quezon City, Philippines GROUP-2 Case digests Submitted to: Dr. Roberto Doctor Submitted by: BAENT-2C Castor, Cyril nova T. Cogonon, Kim Steven T. Cuerdo, Ma. Princess M.
Castor, Cyril nova T.CASE DIGEST BAENT-2C I.Title of the Case Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board Vs. Manila Water Company, Inc. G.R. No. 217590 / March 10, 2020/ Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo II.Antecedent Facts On July 9, 2012, respondent wrote petitioner seeking accreditation of its foreign contractors to undertake its contracts for the construction of necessary facilities for its waterworks and sewerage system. On November 8, 2012, petitioner replied stating that under Section 3.1 of the IRR, regular licenses are reserved for, and issued only to, contractor-firms of Filipino sole proprietorship or partnership/corporation with at least 60% Filipino equity participation and duly organized and existing, under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the trial court which sought for the determination of the validity of Section 3.1, Rule 3 of the IRR issued by petitioner. Respondent claimed that the said provision is unconstitutional since it creates restrictions on foreign investments, a power exclusively vested on Congress by the Constitution. It also argued that the same provision adds restrictions to R.A. No. 4566 which the latter does not provide. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied." Hence, this petition. III.Issues Resolve by Trial Court Petitioner asserts that THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING AS VOID RULE 3, SECTION 3.1... Whether the assailed provision is contrary to the Constitution and if the same constitutes unfair competition.
IV.Pieces of evidence adduced by parties Evidently, respondent's argument of alleged unfair competition does not apply in this case. Fundamentally, the Constitution was enacted for the protection of the Filipinos. As a consequence, the argument that foreigners are put in a disadvantageous position against Filipinos with the enactment of the assailed regulation will not stand against the genuine intent of petitioner to protect the Filipino construction industry. Nevertheless, the Court is not unaware of the economic benefits of opening the construction industry to foreigners. V.Findings and Applicable Laws We find the petition without merit. The Constitution provides safeguards to protect the Filipino industry against domination of foreigners; thus, laws were enacted to secure this state policy, particularly in areas where national economy and patrimony must be protected in our own jurisdiction. Petitioner anchors its authority to issue the assailed IRR on Section 17 of R.A. No. 4566, which provides: Section 17. Power to classify and limit operations. The Board may adopt reasonably necessary rules and regulations to effect the classification of contractors... and may limit the field and scope of the operations of a licensed contractor to those in which he is classified to engage, as respectively defined in section nine. Petitioner is authorized to adopt rules to effect classification of contractors as may be necessary. However, as the RTC observed, Congress did not intend to discriminate against foreign contractors as there is no restriction that may be found in R.A. No. 4566. WHEREFORE, the petition isDENIED. Order of the Regional Trial Court... areAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION
Uploaded by CommodoreStarlingMaster836 on coursehero.com