Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROMETHIUM
MARKETING COMPANY,
represented by NORBERTO
E.CERTEZA,
Plaintiff,
REJOINDER
To the Defendants Motion to Resolve Affirmative Defense
2. Since the tenth day from 6 April 2017 is a Sunday, Plaintiff has
until 17 April 2017 to file its Rejoinder pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Rules of Court; hence, it is respectfully submitted that the
instant Rejoinder is timely filed;
1
Plaintiff in this case, citing the case of Kilusang Mayo Uno vs.
Hon. Garcia1;
2
specialization even in legislation has become
necessary. Given the task of determining sensitive
and delicate matters as route-fixing and rate-
making for the transport sector, the responsible
regulatory body is entrusted with the power of
subordinate legislation. With this authority, an
administrative body and in this case, the LTFRB,
may implement broad policies laid down in a statute
by filling in the details which the Legislature may
neither have time or competence to provide.
However, nowhere under the aforesaid provisions
of law are the regulatory bodies, the PSC, and
LTFRB alike, authorized to delegate that power to a
common carrier, a transport operator, or other
public service.4
4 Emphasis ours.
3
6. Defendant also cited the case of Mago vs. Judge Pealosa-
Formo6 to support its argument that the authority given to Mr.
Tan cannot be delegated to Mr. Certeza. However, Mago
involves the power of municipal trial court judges to conduct
preliminary investigations in which they exercised discretion in
determining whether there was probable cause to summon the
respondent into court. According to the Supreme Court through
Justice Carpio-Morales, such power of discretion being
exercised by municipal trial court judges cannot be delegated to
another. Same with Garcia, the concepts discussed in Mago do
not involve Civil Law concepts on Partnerships, thus, not in all
fours with the instant case;
5 Emphasis ours. The underlined portion is the only part of the said excerpt
that was used by defendant in its argument in the Reply while deliberately
omitting the rest.
4
of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate
the same issue.8
8 Supra. note 7.
5
10. To reiterate, a partnership is based on delectus personae
or mutual agency9. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that
defendant cannot use the Political Law doctrine potestas
delegata non delegari potest to the case at hand because the
same is not applicable to mutual agencies;
11. Defendant cannot deny the fact that the law is very clear
about the matter. Article 1800 of the Civil Code states that:
10 Emphasis ours.
6
consent from the said partner. To reiterate, Article VIII of the
Plaintiffs Articles of Partnership reads that:
a. Consent;
b. Object certain; and
c. Cause or consideration.
7
cause of the Special Power of Attorney which shall supposed to
constitute it as a contract. There is also no consideration in the
instant case that will qualify the Special Power of Attorney as a
contract. Thus, the said Special Power of Attorney does not
have the complete elements to be considered as a contract;
PRAYER
8
FREDERICK FERMIN H. MAGTIBAY
Attorneys Roll No. 49007
IBP No. 1019563-1.18.16- Cavite
PTR No. 7995340 -5-27-16 Cavite
MCLE V- 0022820- 7.4.16
Email address: mags_law19@yahoo.com
CC:
HM Ramos and Associates Law Office
Counsel for defendant
6/F Erlag Building, 102 Esteban St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
EXPLANATION