First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA

FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC. v. CA G.R. No. 110571 / MARCH 10, 1994 / NOCON, J. / BP 129 in relation to EO 226 and SC Circ. No. 1-91 / KJMSTA.ANA

NATURE

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with application for Preliminary Injunction First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. The Court of Appeals and Mariwasa Manufacturing.

SUMMARY. BOI granted First Lepanto Ceramics’s application to amend its registered product from “glazed floor tiles” to “ceramic tiles.” Mariwasa then filed a petition for review with respondent Court of Appeals pursuant to SC Circular 1-91. CA temporarily retrained BOI from implementing its decision. Petitioner, through a Motion to Dismiss Petition, then argued that CA does not have appellate jurisdiction over BOI’s decision, as it is exclusively vested with the Supreme Court pursuant to EO 226. The Court held that Circular 1-91 actually repealed EO 226 insofar as the venue of appeals from decisions of BOI are concerned. DOCTRINE. The right to appeal from decisions or final orders of quasijudicial agencies like BOI as granted by EO 226 remains. Circular 1-91 simply transferred the venue of appeals to respondent Court of Appeals. FACTS.  Board of Investments (BOI) granted petitioner First Lepanto Ceramic’s application to amend its BOI certification of registration by changing the scope of its registered product from “glazed floor tiles” to “ceramic tiles.”  Mariwasa filed a Petition for Review with respondent Court of Appeals. CA then temporarily restrained the BOI from implementing its decision.  Petitioner filed a “Motion to Dismiss Petition and Lift Restraining Order” on the ground that respondent court has no appellate jurisdiction over BOI’s decision, as it is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 82 of EO 226 or “the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987.”  CA denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. Hence, this petition.

 Petitioner argues that BP 129 and Circular 1-91 cannot be the basis of Mariwasa’s appeal to CA because Article 82 of EO 226 provides that appeals from decisions or orders of BOI shall be filed directly with the Supreme Court.  Respondent Mariwasa, on the other hand, posits that the inconsistency between BP 129 and EO226 has already been resolved by SC Circular 191. o BP 129 (1981): vests appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of quasijudicial agenices on the Court of Appeals. o Article 82, EO 226 (1987): appellate jurisdiction over BOI decisions/ orders is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court. o SC Circular 1-91 (1991): the appeal of a party affected by a final order, judgment, or decision of a quasi-judicial agency shall be taken to the Court of Appeals. ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON SC Circular 1-91 repealed Art. 82 of EO 226 insofar as appellate jurisdiction over BOI decisions is concerned

YES. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, although a circular is not strictly a statute or law, it has, however, the force and effect of law according to settled jurisprudence. The right to appeal from decisions or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies like BOI as granted by EO 226 remains. Circular 1-91 simply transferred the venue of appeals to respondent Court of Appeals. DECISION. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing reasons, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction Is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The TRO issued is hereby lifted.