MMDA v Bel Air Village, GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000

MMDA v Bel Air Village, GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000 

Keywords: Police Power, Neptune Street opening to the public, MMDA claim to have 

Facts:

·       30 Dec 1995 – BAVA received a notice from MMDA  (dated 22 Dec 1995) through its chairman to open Neptune Street to Traffic.

·       On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.

·       2 Jan 1996 - Respondent prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order the following day.

·       23 Jan 1996 –Preliminary Injunction was DENIED.

·       Pet Rev to CA. CA conducted an ocular inspection.

·       13 Feb 1996 CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

·       28 Jan 1997 – CA rendered a Decision finding that the MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and cause the demolition of its perimeter walls.

·       28 Sept 1998 - The MR filed by MMDA was DENIED

·       Pet Rev to SC by MMDA.

·       MMDA claims that: it has authority to open Neptune Street bec. MMDA has police power in the delivery of basic services (regulation of the use of thorough fares to insure safety, convenience and welfare of the gen. public) in Metro Manila.

·       MMDA used Sangalang v. IAC: From the premise that it has police power, it is now urged that there is no need for the City of Makati to enact an ordinance opening Neptune street to the public. 

·       Neptune Street is owned by respondent BAVA. It is a private road inside Bel-Air Village, a private residential subdivision in the heart of the financial and commercial district of Makati City. It runs parallel to Kalayaan Avenue, a national road open to the general public. Dividing the two (2) streets is a concrete perimeter wall approximately fifteen (15) feet high. The western end of Neptune Street intersects Nicanor Garcia, formerly Reposo Street, a subdivision road open to public vehicular traffic, while its eastern end intersects Makati Avenue, a national road. Both ends of Neptune Street are guarded by iron gates.

Issue: W/N MMDA has the authority to open Neptune street to public traffic as an agent of the state endowed with police power.

Ratio: MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the LGUs, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power.

Ruling: A ‘local government’ is a “political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs”. It is a “body politic and corporate” – one endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory (LGC of 1991).

Our Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in Sec.16 of the LGC of 1991. It empowers the sangguniangpanlalawigan, panlungsod and bayan to “enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the [province, city or municipality] and its inhabitants pursuant to Sec.16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the [LGU’s corporate powers] provided under the Code.”

There is no syllable in RA 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the LGUs, there is no grant of authority in RA 7924 that allows the MMDA to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is merely a “development authority” and not a political unit of government since it is neither an LGU or a public corporation endowed with legislative power. The MMDA Chairman is not an elective official, but is merely appointed by the President with the rank and privileges of a cabinet member.

In sum, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the LGUs, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power.

The SangguniangPanlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by the MMDA is illegal.

Duncan Association v Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, G.R. 162994, September 17, 2004.

Duncan Association v Glaxo Wellcome Philippines,  G.R.

162994, September 17, 2004.

Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated May 19, 2003 and the Resolution dated March 26, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62434.

Keywords: Equal Protection Clause

Summary:Petitioner has a relationship with an employee of a rival pharmaceutical firm. Petitioner was made aware thru his employment contract that if having a relationship with an employee of a competing drug company would pose a possible conflict of interest, he may be asked to resign from Glaxo.

Facts:

• 25 Oct 1995: Petitioner Pedro Tecson(Tecson) was hired by herein respondent GlaxoWellcom Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) as a medical representative in CamarinesSuur-Camarines Norte sales area. Tecson signed an employment contract, wherein he agreed, among others, to study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies; and if management  found that such relationship posed a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company.

• September 1998: Tecson married Bettsyan employee of a rival pharmaceutical firm—Astra Pharmaceuticals.

• January 1999: Tecson's superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy had given rise to a conflict of interest. Negotiations ensued, with Tecson adverting to his wife's possible resignation from Astra, and Glaxo making it known that they preferred to retain his services owing to his good performance. Yet no resolution came to pass.

• September 1999: Tecson asked to be transferred to Glaxo’s Milk Division, but was denied in view of Glaxo’s “least-movement-possible” policy.

• November 1999: Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. Tecson asked Glaxo to reconsider its decision, but his request was denied. Tecson sought Glaxo’s reconsideration regarding his transfer and brought the matter to Glaxo’s Grievance Committee. Glaxo, however, remained firm in its decision and gave Tescon until February 7, 2000 to comply with the transfer order. Tecson defied the transfer order and continued acting as medical representative in the Camarines Sur-CamarinesNorte sales area.

• 15 November 2000: the Nat’l. Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that Glaxo’s policy on relationships between its employees and persons employed with competitor companies was valid, and affirmed Glaxo's right to transfer Tecson to another sales territory.

• This decision was assailed by petitioners before the Court of Appeals and the Court, but to no avail.

Issue:Whether or Not Glaxo’s  policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor companies is valid, and in not holding that said policy violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution;

Ratio: Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets.

Ruling: The record shows that Tecson was aware about the policy imposed by  Glaxo company, upon signing the contract, he voluntarily set his hands to follow the said policies. Albeit employees are free to cultivate relationships w/ and marry persons of their own choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships. 

It is clear that Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition against relationships between its employees and those of competitor companies. Its employees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their own choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships. As succinctly explained by the appellate court, thus:

The policy being questioned is not a policy against marriage. An employee of the company remains free to marry anyone of his or her choosing. The policy is not aimed at restricting a personal prerogative that belongs only to the individual.However, an employees personal decision does not detract the employer from exercising management prerogatives to ensure maximum profit and business success. .

After Tecson married Bettsy, Glaxo gave him time to resolve the conflict .Glaxo even expressed its desire to retain Tecson in its employ because of his satisfactory performance and suggested that his wife would be the one to resign instead.  Glaxo likewise acceded to his repeated requests for more time to resolve the conflict of interest. When the problem could not be resolved after several years of waiting, Glaxo was constrained to reassign Tecson to a sales area different from that handled by his wife for Astra.  Notably, the Court did not terminate Tecson from employment but only reassigned him to another area where his home province, Agusandel Sur, was included.  In effecting Tecson’s transfer, Glaxo even considered the welfare of Tecson’s family.  Clearly, the foregoing dispels any suspicion of unfairness and bad faith on the part of Glaxo.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.