By: Kim V. Naparan

Layout by: Lou Margaret S. Nebit

Constitutional Law

Electric Cooperatives Enjoy No Constitutional Right to an Exclusive Franchise Within Their Coverage Areas (lloilo Electric Cooperative, Inc., [ILECO I], et al v. Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, G.R. No. 264260, July 30, 2024)

The Supreme Court (SC) once again stressed that exclusive franchises are prohibited under the 1987 Constitution. The Court added that electric cooperatives do not have a constitutional right to an exclusive franchise within their coverage areas.

Here, the Iloilo Electric Cooperative, Inc. I, II, and III (ILECOs) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to challenge Section 1 of Republic Act No. 11918. They argue that it violates their rights to exclusive franchises, due process, equal protection, and non-impairment of contracts. 

R.A. No. 11918 is aimed at making electricity more affordable in Iloilo province by expanding the franchise of another electricity provider to areas within ILECO’s franchise. This goal is in line with the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) which promotes the entry of another player; thereby benefiting consumers. Thus, without healthy competition, ILECOs can dictate the price of electricity. 

Citing Article XII, Section 11 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court emphasized that a franchise is a privilege granted by the State and not an exclusive property of the franchisee. Hence, a franchise should yield to serve the common good. The case was dismissed. 

---

Civil Law

Only the Legal Spouse and Children are the beneficiaries of the Death Benefits of a Seafarer (Macalinao v. Macalinao, G.R. No. 250613, April 3, 2024)

The Supreme Court awarded the death benefits to the heirs of a deceased seafarer (Pedrito Macalino), to his children, both legitimate and illegitimate, and to his long-estranged wife.

In this case, the Court held that the death benefits of a seafarer under the Philippine Employment Administration (POEA) contract should be given only to his surviving legitimate spouse, although estranged from him, and to his legitimate or illegitimate children.

Here, the Court explained that the subject death benefits do not form part of the decedent’s estate because Article 781 of the Civil Code provides that what forms part of the estate is only the property, and transmissible rights and obligations that exist at the time of the decedent’s death.

Under POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010 (POEA MC), the benefits for the seafarer’s death are payable to his beneficiaries following the rules of succession under the Civil Code. Therefore, these benefits are payable to the legal heirs not as inheritance but as proceeds from a death benefit.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that Article 892 of the Civil Code, subject to Article 895 of the same Code, as amended by Article 176 of the Family Code, shall govern the distribution of the benefits among the legal heirs if there is one (1) legitimate child, multiple illegitimate children, and a surviving spouse. In other words, the beneficiaries are determined per the rules of compulsory and intestate succession. 

Thus, applying the said provisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the share of each legitimate child or children must first be satisfied and, second, the share of the surviving spouse in relation to the number of legitimate children. The last is the remaining share of the illegitimate child, or the free portion of the hereditary estate. 

---

Remedial Law

Guidelines for a Valid Administrative Warrant (Board of Commissioners v. Wenle, G.R. No. 242957, February 28, 2023)

The Supreme Court laid down the following rules in upholding the validity of administrative warrants:

1. The danger, harm, or evil sought to be prevented by the warrant must be imminent and must be greater than the damage or injury which will be sustained by the one who shall be temporarily deprived of a right to liberty or property;

2. The warrant’s resultant deprivation of a right or legitimate claim of entitlement must be temporary or provisional, aimed only at suppressing imminent danger, harm, or evil, with such deprivation’s permanency must be strictly subjected to procedural due process requirements;

3. The issuing administrative authority must be empowered by law to perform specific implementing acts under regulatory purposes;

4. The issuing administrative authority must be necessarily authorized by law to pass upon and make final pronouncements on conflicting rights and obligations of contending parties, as well as to issue warrants or orders that are incidental to the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it;

5. The issuance of an administrative warrant must be based on tangible proof or probable cause and must state a specific purpose or infraction allegedly committed with particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized;

6. The warrant issued must not pertain to a criminal offense or pursued as a precursor for the filing of criminal charges and any object seized pursuant to such writ shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding;

7. The person temporarily deprived of a right or entitlement by an administrative warrant shall be formally charged within a reasonable time, if no such period is provided, and shall not be denied access to a competent counsel of his or her choice. In cases where a person is deprived of liberty by virtue of an administrative warrant, the adjudicative body that issued said warrant shall immediately submit a verified notice to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) nearest to the detainee for purposes of issuing a judicial commitment order; and

8. A violation of any item of these guidelines is a prima facie proof of usurpation of judicial functions, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or graft and corrupt practices on the part of responsible officers. 

---

Criminal Law

Guidelines for Determining the Credibility of Child Rape Victims (People v. XXX, G.R. No. 263227, August 2, 2023)

The Supreme Court laid down the five (5) stages of the theory of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome that help determine the credibility of child rape victims:

1. The First Stage or “Secrecy.” In this initial phase, ascertain what an abuser does and why the child keeps the matter a secret for reasons such as embarrassment, shame, “sometimes enforced” by the adult telling the child to keep it secret, or suggesting negative consequences if it is revealed.

2. The Second Stage or “Helplessness.” This is when the child feels an absence of power in a relationship with a parental figure or trusted adult. 

3. The Third Stage or “Entrapment and Accommodation” This happens when the child fails to seek protection.

4. The Fourth Stage or “Delayed disclosure.” This stage tends to be delayed because of the child’s fear, shame, or emotional confusion.

5. The Final Stage or “Retraction.” This involves the child’s denials that the abuse has occurred. 

---

Taxation Law

NFA is Exempt from Tax (National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum, G.R. No. 261472, May 21, 2024)

The Supreme Court (SC) held that the properties of the National Food Authority (NFA), which is a government instrumentality, are exempt from real property tax.

The NFA (former: National Grains Authority or NGA) was established under then-President-turned-dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., through Presidential Decree No. 4, issued on September 4, 1972. Under the law, the NFA is empowered to oversee the acquisition, maintenance, and distribution of rice buffer stock; maintain an optimal level of national rice inventory; and sustain the government’s disaster relief programs.

Here, the NFA filed a petition before the Court, praying for the reversal of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc’s decision and for the Notices of Delinquency (NDs) to be declared null and void. The NFA argued that it is exempt from real property tax as a government instrumentality.

In granting the NFA’s petition, the SC reiterated the well-entrenched rule that tax exemptions for government agencies are recognized under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which provides that property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions is exempt from real property tax, except when beneficial use has been granted to private entities.

Therefore, as a government instrumentality, the properties of the NFA are deemed to be under public dominion for public use or service. Hence, these are exempt from real property tax, absent any showing or evidence that their beneficial use belongs to a taxable person.