View full case

FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Second Division of the Court, which upheld the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over appeals from the decisions of the Board of Investments (BOI). Petitioner First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. argues that Circular No. 1-91 should not supersede Article 82 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 226) because the Code, a substantive act of Congress, defines the jurisdiction of courts, while the circular is only a rule of procedure promulgated by the Court. Petitioner also questions the Second Division's holding that the right to appeal granted by the Code is substantive and cannot be modified by a procedural rule. However, the Court en banc agreed to consider the motion due to its importance. The Court mentions that judicial review of BOI decisions was originally provided for in the Omnibus Investments Code of 1981, which was later amended by B.P. Blg. 129, granting appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals. However, when the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 was promulgated, the right to appeal to the Supreme Court was reinstated. The Court notes that the present Constitution requires the Court's advice and concurrence for any law increasing its appellate jurisdiction. As Article 82 of the 1987 Code did not receive the Court's advice and concurrence, it is not effective in amending B.P. Blg. 129. Therefore, the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide appeals from the BOI is provided by B.P. Blg. 129, Section 9, and should be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Circular No. 1-91. The Court expresses regret that the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court were not obtained when the 1987 Code was enacted. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of the Board of Investments (BOI).

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of the BOI. The Court held that the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide cases appealed to it from the BOI is conferred by B.P. Blg. 129, § 9, to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Circular No. 1-91. The Court also noted that there is no reason why decisions and final orders of the BOI must be directly appealed to the Supreme Court, as the purpose of § 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 is to provide uniform appeals to the Court of Appeals from the decisions and final orders of all quasi-judicial agencies, with exceptions.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Supreme Court has control over the appellate jurisdiction of the Court as provided in the Constitution, and no law increasing the Court's appellate jurisdiction shall be passed without its advice and concurrence.

  • The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, including the BOI, is provided for in B.P. Blg. 129, § 9.

  • The purpose of § 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 is to provide uniform appeals to the Court of Appeals from the decisions and final orders of all quasi-judicial agencies, except for those issued under the Labor Code and those rendered by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.