Tolentino vs. Board of Accountancy DigestFull description
Full description
Garcia vs EO Corona digest
Vivas vs Monetary Board Case Digest
Digest G.R. No. 171951 Garcia vs People
constitutional law 1
Syquia vs Board of Power and Waterworks Case Digest Administrative Law Quasi-Judicial FunctionFull description
Full description
People v WebbFull description
case digestFull description
digest
ggFull description
Ch17Full description
Auditing problemsFull description
digest
garcia vs recioFull description
digest consti 2Full description
Garcia vs Salvador Digest
The Board of Medical Education Vs Alfonso
AdminFull description
Cooper vs Wandsworth Board of WorksFull description
Garcia vs. Board of Investments (BOI) 191 SCRA 288 November 199
FACTS: Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), now Luzon Petrochemical Corporation, formed b a !roup of Taiwane"e in#e"tor", wa" !ranted b the B$% for the tran"fer of it" propo"ed plant "ite from Bataan to Batan!a" and the "hift of the plant&" feed"toc' or fuel for it" petrochemical plant from naphta onl to naptha and*or li+ueed petroleum !a"- %n Februar ./0/, one ear after the BPC be!an it" production in Bataan, the corporation applied to the B$% to ha#e it" plant "ite tran"ferred from Bataan to Batan!a"- 1e"pite #i!orou" oppo"ition from petitioner Con!- 2nri+ue 3arcia and other", the B$% !ranted pri#ate re"pondent BPC&" application, "tatin! that the in#e"tor" ha#e the nal choice a" to where to ha#e their plant "ite becau"e the are the one" who ri"' capital for the pro4ect%SS52: 6hether or not the B$% committed a !ra#e abu"e of di"cretion in ieldin! to the application of the in#e"tor" without con"iderin! the national intere"t C$57T 75L%83: The Supreme Court found the B$% to ha#e committed committed !ra#e abu"e of of di"cretion di"cretion in thi" ca"e, and ordered the ori!inal application application of the BPC to ha#e it" plant "ite in Bataan and the product naphta a" feed"toc' maintained The ponente, 9u"tice 3utierrez, 3utierrez, 9r-, 9r-, r"t "tated the Court&" 4udicial 4udicial power to "ettle "ettle actual contro#er"ie" contro#er"ie" a" pro#ided for b Section . of Article %%% in our ./0; Con"titution before he wrote the rea"on" a" to how the Court arri#ed to it" conclu"ion- ta'en well>ta'en becau"e the ./0; %n#e"tment Code doe" not prohibit the re!i"tration of a certain pro4ect, a" well a" an deci"ion of the B$% re!ardin! the amended application- She "tated that the fact that petitioner di"a!ree" with B$% doe" not ma'e the B$% wron! in it" deci"ion, and that petitioner "hould ha#e appealed to the Pre"ident of the countr and not to the Court, a" pro#ided for b Section ?@ of the ./0; %n#e"tment Code 9u"tice elencio>
