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 Ceramicss 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 BOIs 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held that Circular 1-91 actually repealed EO 226 insofar as the venue of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 Ceramics
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 BOIs
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 petitioners Motion to Dismiss. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner argues that BP 129 and Circular 1-91 cannot be the basis of
Mariwasas 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 petitioners 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.