2019 Omnibus Digest-Nao

POLITICAL LAW>Administrative Law>Power of Administrative Agencies
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, AND THE

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FORMERLY THE BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS),
REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, OFFICER-IN-
CHARGE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015
First Division
FACTS: Philip Morris Philippine Manufacturing, Inc. (PMPMI) applied for a sales promotion permit before
the BFAD for its two promos, Gear Up Promo and the Golden Stick Promo by virtue of Article 116 of RA
7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines). On PMPMI’s Gear Up Promo the BFAD only verbally informed
PMPI of the existence of the Memorandum issued by the DOH purportedly prohibiting tobacco companies
from any tobacco promotional activities in the country. While BFAD refused outright the Golden Stick
Promo, pursuant to the directive of the Director in accordance with the instructions of the Undersecretary
of Health for Standards and Regulations, directing that as of July 1, 2008, "all promotions, advertisements
and/or sponsorships of tobacco products are already prohibited," based on the provisions of RA 9211 or
the "Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003." On appeal, PMPMI maintained that under RA 9211, promotion is
not prohibited but merely restricted, and that while there are specific provisions therein totally banning
tobacco advertising and sponsorships, no similar provision could be found banning promotion. It likewise
averred that it had acquired a vested right over the granting of its sales promotional permit applications,
considering that the BFAD has been granting such applications prior to January 5, 2009. The DOH
affirmed the action of BFAD denying their sales promotional permit applications, pursuant to the
provisions of RA 9211. The CA nullified the DOH Decision.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not the DOH had the power to deny applications for sales promotion of tobacco
pursuant to RA 9211?
HELD: No. Art 116 of RA 7394 provides that “No person shall conduct any sales campaigns, including
beauty contest, national in character, sponsored and promoted by manufacturing enterprises without first
securing a permit from the concerned department…” While Art 109 of the same act provides that “That
with respect to food, drugs, cosmetics, devices, and hazardous substances, it shall be enforced by the
Department of Health.” This is where DOH derives its authority to rule upon applications for sales
promotion permits.
The Court finds that the latter law impliedly repealed the relevant provisions of the former with respect to
the authority of the DOH to regulate tobacco sales promotions.
The IAC-Tobacco was created and expressly given the exclusive authority to implement the provisions of
RA 9211 in accordance with the foregoing State policy, it signifies that it shall also take charge of the
regulation of the use, sale, distribution, and advertisements of tobacco products, as well as all forms of
"promotion" which essentially includes "sales promotion." Therefore, with this regulatory power conferred
upon the IAC-Tobacco by RA 9211, the DOH and the BFAD have been effectively and impliedly divested
of any authority to act upon applications for tobacco sales promotional permit, including PMPMI’s.
Finally, it must be stressed that RA 9211 is a special legislation while RA 7394 is broader and more
general in scope. As such, lex specialis derogat generali. Where two statutes are of equal theoretical
application to a particular case, the one specially designed therefore should prevail.
The case was remanded to the Inter-Agency Committee –Tobacco for appropriate action.
CIVIL LAW>Obligations and Contracts>Kinds of Contracts>Validity
THE HEIRS OF PETER DONTON, THROUGH THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, FELIPE G.

CAPULONG, Petitioners, v. DUANE STIER AND EMILY MAGGAY, Respondents.
G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017
Second Division
FACTS: Peter Donton filed the complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance of property with
damages against respondents and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, alleging that the signature on
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 2001, was a forgery as he was allegedly still in the United
States, having departed from the Philippines on June 27, 2001 and returned only on August 30, 2001. He
further alleged that Stier is an American Citizen and not allowed to own real properties in the
Philippines. In their Answer with Counterclaim, respondents asserted that on September 11, 1995,
Donton executed an Occupancy Agreement and that Stier had extended a loan to him in the amount of
P3,000,000.00, secured by a mortgage over the subject property and its improvements.Respondents
likewise claimed that Donton executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated September 11, 1995 in
favor of Stier, giving him full authority to sell, mortgage, or lease the subject property. Unfortunately,
Donton failed to pay his obligation to Stier; thus, they initially executed a "unilateral contract of sale" dated
June 25, 2001 over the subject property and eventually executed the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July
16, 2001. During trial, Rosario C. Perez (Perez), Document Examiner II of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame testified that the handwriting was not of Donton. During trial,
Donton passed away and the RTC allowed substitution of petitioners as plaintiffs. The RTC dismissed the
complaint on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC ruling that
petitioners failed to substantiate their allegation that Stier is an American citizen and married.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contract executed between Peter Donton and Duane Stier is valid?
HELD: No. The courts a quo erred in ruling that Stier's American citizenship was not established in this
case, effectively rendering the sale of the subject property as to him void ab initio, in light of the clear
proscription under Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution against foreigners acquiring real property in
the Philippines. An Affidavit executed by Stier himself, stating: "I, DUANE STIER, of legal age,
married, American citizen x x x."
The foregoing statements made by Stier are admissions against interest and are therefore binding upon
him. An admission against interest binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that
this was made through palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it, especially so in this
case where respondents failed to present even one piece of evidence in their defense.
To prove forgery, petitioners offered the findings and testimony given by expert witness Perez, who
declared that she found "significant divergences in the manner of execution, line quality, stroke structure
and other individual handwriting characteristics" between the signature that appears on the Deed of
Absolute Sale and the standard signatures of Donton. On cross-examination, however, Perez admitted
that she had no actual knowledge of the source of the specimen signatures given to her for examination,
as it was the CIDG personnel who provided her with the same. Thus, as the CA correctly observed,
Perez's findings deserve little or no probative weight at all, considering that the signatures which she used
for comparison came from an unverified source. Perforce, petitioners are left with no conclusive evidence
to prove their allegation that Donton's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged.
The petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated June 13, 2014 and the Resolution dated January
21, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97138, which affirmed the dismissal of the complaint
filed by petitioners on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and a NEW ONE is entered: (1) annulling the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 2001 insofar as
respondent Duane Stier is concerned; (2) annulling Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-225996 insofar as
respondent Duane Stier is concerned; and (3) directing the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City to issue a
new title in the name of Peter Donton and Emily Maggay, all without prejudice to the rights of any
subsequent purchasers for value of the subject property.

2019 Omnibus Digest-Nao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Omnibus Digest-Nao

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Omnibus Digest-Nao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LAW>Administrative Law>Power of Administrative Agencies

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, AND THE

THE HEIRS OF PETER DONTON, THROUGH THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, FELIPE G.

You might also like