LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. ASSO.
OF LDB EMPLOYEES statutory existence of ISA had expired prompting MCFC to file
G.R. No. 120319
October 6, 1995
FACTS: From a submission agreement of the LDB and the
Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE)
arose an arbitration case to resolve: Whether or not the
company has violated the CBA provision and the MOA on
promotion. The parties agreed to submit their respective
Position Papers. Atty. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary
Arbitrator, received ALDBE’s Position Paper; LDB, and no
Position Paper had been filed by LDB. Without LDB’s Position
Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision that the
Bank has not adhered to the CBA provision nor the MOA on
promotion. Hence,a petition for certiorari and prohibition
seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator
and to prohibit her from enforcing the same.
ISSUE: WON a voluntary arbiter’s decision is appealable to
the CA and not the SC
HELD: YES. The Court resolved to REFER this case to the
Court of Appeals.
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by RA. 7902, provides
that the Court of Appeals shall exercise:
“(B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,
decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of RTC s and quasi-
judicial agencies, instrumentalities...” The voluntary
arbitrators are comprehended within the concept of a “quasi-
judicial instrumentality. The word “instrumentality,” with
respect to a state, contemplates an authority to which the
state delegates governmental power for the performance of a
state function. The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a
state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated
to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and
he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of the term
“instrumentality” in the aforequoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. A
fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or
panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the CA.
Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that award or
decision, the CA must be deemed to have concurrent
jurisdiction with the SC. As a matter of policy, this Court shall
henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petitions of this
nature for proper disposition.
Iron and Steel Authority vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 102976,
October 25, 1995
FACTS: The Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) was created by PD
No. 272, to develop and promote the iron and steel industry
in the Philippines. Initially, it was created for a term of 5 years
but was extended for another 10 years by another EO. The
National Steel Corporation (NSC), then a wholly owned
subsidiary of the National Development Corporation which is
an entity owned by the National Government embarked on
an expansion program including the construction of a steel
mill in Iligan City. A proclamation was issued by the President
withdrawing from sale or settlement a tract of land in Iligan
City to be used by the NSC. However, certain portions of the
public land were occupied by Maria Cristina Fertilizer Co.
(MCFC). LOI No. 1277 was issued directing NSC to negotiate
with the owners of MCFC for and on behalf of the
Government for the compensation of MCFC’s and further
directed that ISA may exercise the power of eminent domain
should the negotiations fail. Since it failed, ISA commenced
expropriation proceedings. While trial was on-going, the
the dismissal of the case since ISA has ceased to be a juridical
person. ISA urged that the Republic of the Philippines should
be allowed to be substituted in its place.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines is
entitled to be substituted for ISA in view of the expiration of
ISA’s term.
HELD: Yes. ISA appears to be a non-incorporated agency or
instrumentality of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines. The Court considers that ISA is properly regarded
as an agent or delegate of the Republic of the Philippines. The
Republic itself is a body corporate and juridical person vested
with legal personality. When the statutory term of a non-
incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and
functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency
revert back to, and are re-assumed by, the Republic of the
Philippines, in the absence of special provisions of law
specifying some other disposition thereof. Since ISA is a non-
incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Republic, its
powers, duties, functions, assets and liabilities are properly
regarded as folded back into the Government of the
Philippines and hence assumed once again by the Republic. It
follows that the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be
substituted in the expropriation proceedings as party-plaintiff
in lieu of ISA, the statutory term of ISA having expired. The
expiration of ISA’s statutory did not by itself require or justify
the dismissal of the eminent domain proceedings.
Republic v. CA (1991)
G.R. 90482
FACTS: Republic Planters Bank (RPB) filed a complaint in the
RTC for sum of money/delivery of personal property with
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against
Philippine Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM) and the National
Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA). They asked the court
to order PHILSUCOM and NASUTRA to render a faithful
account and inventory of different bank accounts being held
and sugar stocks for the crop. Before PHILSUCOM and
NASUTRA could answer, a compromise agreement was
submitted and was approved by the lower court. EO 18
created SRA to take over the functions of the defunct
PHILSUCOM; however, the latter was to remain a judicial
entity for three more years for the purpose of prosecuting
and defending suits against it. An appeal by certiorari with
prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction, filed by the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) in behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, acting through the SRA and the RPB.
ISSUE:
1. Whether SRA can bring an action in behalf of the
Government?
2. Whether OGCC can bring an action in behalf of the
Government?
HELD:
1. NO. SRA may not lawfully bring an action on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines (RP) and that the OGCC does
not have the authority to represent the petitioner in this
case nor the RP. SRA is an administrative agency, a
government body charged with administering and
implementing particular legislation. The charter does not
specifically include the power to represent the RP in suits,
 having withheld from SRA, it follows that it cannot
institute the instant petition.

2. NO. OGCC also cannot represent SRA nor the Republic of

the Philippines. OGCC is the principal law office of all
GOCCs including subsidiaries; the president may not allow
it to act as lawyer for a specified GOCC or subsidiary. Since
SRA is neither a GOCC nor a subsidiary, OGCC does not
have the authority to represent it.