Bustamante vs COA, 216 SCRA 134

Bustamante v COA 216 SCRA 134

FACTS:

            

Petitioner is the Regional Legal Counsel of National Power Corporation (NPC). As such he was issued a government vehicle with plate number SCC 387. Pursuant to NPC policy as reflected in the Board Resolution No. 81-95 authorizing the monthly disbursement of transportation allowance, the petitioner, in addition to the use of government vehicle, claimed his transportation allowance for the month of January 1989. On May 31, 1990, the petitioner received an Auditor's Notice to Person Liable dated April 17, 1990 from respondent Regional Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian disallowing P1,250.00 representing aforesaid transportation allowance. The petitioner moved for reconsideration of the disallowance of the claim for transportation allowance which was denied.

            

Petitioner appealed this denial to the Commission on Audit which denied do due course. Hence this petition.

            

The petitioner takes exception from the coverage of said circular contending that such circular did not mention the NPC as one of the corporations/offices covered by it ( COA Circular No. 75-6)

ISSUE:

            

Whether such denial to give due course to the appeal of herein petitioner constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction?

            

Whether NPC takes an exception from such coverage of the said circular contending that such circular did not mention NPC as one of the corporations/offices covered by it.

HELD:

            

NO. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

            

NO. It is very patent that the circular is addressed, among others, to managing heads of Government-owned or Controlled Corporations, the NPC being held under such category of corporations. We likewise cannot sustain petitioner's contention that the Commission, in the exercise of its power granted by the Constitution, usurped the statutory functions of the NPC Board of Directors for its leads to the absurd conclusion that a mere Board of Directors of a government-owned and controlled corporation, by issuing a resolution, can put to naught a constitutional provision which has been ratified by the majority of the Filipino people. If We will not sustain the Commission's power and duty to examine, audit and settle accounts pertaining to this particular expenditures or use of funds and property, owned or held in trust by this government-owned and controlled corporation, the NPC, We will be rendering inutile this Constitutional Body which has been tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately, the people's property.

Napocor vs. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991)

Napocor vs. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff National Power Corporation (NPC), a government owned and controlled entity, in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 120, is vested with the power of eminent domain for the purpose of pursuing its objectives, which among others is the construction, operation, and maintenance of electric transmission lines for distribution throughout the Philippines. For the construction of its 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines, plaintiff's lines have to pass the lands belonging to defendant spouses Gutierrez. Chiefly, the only controversy existing between the party’s litigants is the reasonableness and adequacy of the disturbance or compensation fee of the expropriated properties. It is the contention of petitioner that the Court of Appeals committed gross error by adjudging the petitioner liable for the payment of the full market value of the land of P 10 pesos per square meter traversed by its transmission lines, and that it overlooks the undeniable fact that a simple right-of-way easement (for the passage of transmission lines) transmits no rights, except that of the easement. Full ownership is retained by the private respondents and they are not totally deprived of the use of the land. They can continue planting the same agricultural crops, except those that would result in contact with the wires. On this premise, petitioner submits that if full market value is required, then full transfer of ownership is only the logical equivalent otherwise, they are to pay only P1 per square meter as identified by the corporation commissioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner should be made to pay simple easement fee or full compensation for the land traversed by its transmission lines.

RULING:

While it is true that plaintiff is (sic) only after a right-of-way easement, it nevertheless perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant higher than three (3) meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through said transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all plaintiff only pays the fee to defendants once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their property.

The nature and effect of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by NPC against the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinary use.

For these reasons, the owner of the property expropriated is entitled to a just compensation.