[CivPro] | [Jurisdiction over subject matter Supreme Court] 1

[JMCD]

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v CA and

Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc.
[GR NO. 110571] | [7 Oct 1994] | [Mendoza, J.]
BACKGROUND: This is a motion for reconsideration stemming from the judgment of
the Court in an earlier case involving the question of the procedure of filing of appeals
from decisions of the Board of Investments. Conflicting provisions of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 (EO 226) and SC
Circular No. 1-91 were scrutinized. Eventually, it was ruled that the right to appeal
from decisions or final orders of the BOI under EO 226 remains, with the Circular
merely transferring the venue of appeals from decisions of BOI to CA and providing for
a 15-day period of appeal. Although there was a list of included quasi-judicial agencies
in the Circular, BOI not being expressly included does not mean that the Circular is
binding especially since BOI is not part of the excluded agencies expressly listed.
Circular 1-91, although not a law, has the force of a status and has effectively
repealed Art 82 of EO 226 insofar as the manner and method of enforcing the right to
appeal from decisions of the BOI are concerned in which the said statute previously
allowed appeals from BOI decisions to be filed directly with the SC should now be
brought to the CA
DOCTRINE: The Constitution now provides in Art. VI, 30 that No law shall be
passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided
in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. This provision is
intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases placed
under its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of
legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the
Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding the law in
its most profound national aspects.
FACTS
Petitioner contends that Circular No. 1-91 cannot be deemed to have
superseded Art 82 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 (EO 226).
The Code, promulgated by Pres. Aquino in the exercise of legislative authority, is
a substantive act of Congress defining the jurisdiction of courts pursuant to Art
VIII, Sec 2 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the circular is a rule of
procedure promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rule-making power under
Art VIII, Sec 5(5).
Petitioner questions the holding of the Second Div that although the right to
appeal granted by Art 82 of the Code is a substantive right which cannot be
modified by a rule of procedure, questions concerning where and in what
manner the appeal can be brought are only matters of procedure which the
Court has power to regulate.
Judicial review of the decisions and final orders of the BOI was originally
provided for in the Omnibus Investments Code of 1981 (PD 1789). It was
amended by BP 129, transferring the exclusive appellate jurisdiction from SC to
Intermediate Appellate Court (now CA).
Upon promulgation of Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 (EO226), the right to
appeal from BOI decisions was returned to SC.

At that time, the present Constitution had already taken effect, providing Art VI,
Sec 30.
Art 82 of 1987 Omnibus Investments Code increased the appellate jurisdiction of
SC without the latters advice and concurrence thereby rendering the provision
void.
Sec 9 of BP 129 sought to provide uniform appeals to CA from decisions of all
quasi-judicial agencies, with the exception of those under Labor Code and those
rendered by the Central Board Assessment Appeals.