Puyat et. al. vs. de Guzman and Acero, et. al. G.R. No. L-51122 March 25, 19 2 !

acts" International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) held an election for eleven Directors. Justice Estanislao Fernandez (Assembl man Fernandez)! a member of Interim "atasan# Pambansa! is one of the elected Directors. $hen a %uo &arranto proceedin# %uestionin# the election &as instituted b the petitioners in the 'ecurities and E(chan#e Commission ('EC)! Assembl man Fernandez appeared as counsel for the respondents! to &hich the petitioner ob)ected on Constitutional #rounds * 'ection ++! Article ,III of the +-./ Constitution provided that no Assembl man could appear as counsel before0 an administrative bod 1. 'ince 'EC &as an administrative bod and the cited Constitutional prohibition bein# clear! Fernandez did not continue his appearance for respondent. 2he 'EC found that Assembl man Fernandez had purchased +3 shares of IPI for P433.33 upon re%uest of Acero! one of the respondents. Follo&in# the notarization of the shares purchased! the Assembl man Fernandez filed a motion for intervention in the 'EC case as the o&ner of +3 IPI shares alle#in# le#al interest in the matter in liti#ation. 'EC #ranted the leave to intervene on the basis of Assembl man Fernandez5 o&nership of the said +3 shares. "ecause of this order! the petitioners then filed an instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition &ith Preliminar In)unction. #ssue" In intervenin# in the 'EC case! is Assembl man Fernandez! in effect! appearin# as counsel before an administrative bod in contravention of the Constitutional provision6 $eld" 7es! Assembl man Fernandez is! in intervenin# in the 'EC case! in effect! appearin# as counsel before an administrative bod 2he 'upreme Court ('C) reversed and set aside the order of the 'EC and held that the intervention of Assembl man Fernandez in the 'EC case falls &ithin the ambit of the prohibition contained in 'ection ++! Article ,III of the +-./ Constitution. 8rdinaril ! b virtue of the motion to intervene! Assembl man Fernandez cannot be said to be appearin# as counsel as he is appearin# for the protection of his o&nership shares in IPI in matters of liti#ation. 9o&ever! in this case! the 'C found that the shares he o&ns is merel +3 shares out of 4:4!;</ shares! that he ac%uired the said shares after the filin# of the %uo &arranto case! and that even before his motion for intervention he had alread e(pressed his intention to be the counsel for Acero #roup. 2he 'C ruled that there has been 1indirect= appearance as counsel before an administrative bod ! and opined that this is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. 2he 'C also added that a rulin# upholdin# the >intervention> &ould ma?e the constitutional provision ineffective because all an Assembl man need to do! if he &ants to influence an administrative bod is to ac%uire a minimal participation in the >interest> of the client and then >intervene> in the proceedin#s.

PAL vs. %&v&l Aeronaut&cs 'oard and Grand #nternat&onal A&r(ays, #nc. G.R. No. 11952 March 2), 199* !acts"
8n @ovember 4<! +--<! Arand International Air&a s (ArandAir) applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and @ecessit &ith the Civil Aeronautics "oard. Accordin#l ! the Chief 9earin# 8fficer of the CA" issued a @otice of 9earin# settin# the application for initial hearin# on December +:! +--<! and directin# ArandAir to serve a cop of the application and correspondin# notice to all scheduled Philippine Domestic operators. 8n December +<! +--<! ArandAir filed its Compliance! and re%uested for the issuance of a 2emporar 8peratin# Permit. PAB! a holder of a le#islative franchise to operate air transport services! filed an 8pposition to the application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and @ecessit on December +:! +--C 8n December 43! +--<! the Chief 9earin# 8fficer of CA" issued an 8rder den in# PAB5s 8pposition. 8n December 4/! +--<! the "oard promul#ated Desolution @o. ++-(-4) approvin# the issuance of a 2emporar 8peratin# Permit in favor of Arand Air for a period of three months (from December 44! +--< to Earch 44! +--C). Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the issuance of the 2emporar 8peratin# Permit on Januar ++! +--C! but the same &as denied in CA" Desolution @o. 34 (-C) on Februar 4! +--C. 8n Earch 4+! +--C! upon motion b private respondent! the temporar permit &as e(tended for a period of si( (:) months or up to 'eptember 44! +--C. 9ence! the petitioner filed a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition under Dule :C of Dules of Court before the 'upreme Court. #++,-" Does the Con#ress! in enactin# Depublic Act ..:! have dele#ated the authorit to authorize the operation of domestic air transport services to the respondent "oard! such that Con#ressional mandate for the approval of such authorit is no lon#er necessar 6 RA.#/ 7es! the Con#ress has the dele#ated authorit to authorize the operation of domestic air transport services to the respondent board. Con#ress has #ranted certain administrative a#encies the po&er to #rant licenses for! or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. 2o this effect! the Civil Aeronautics "oard has the authorit to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and @ecessit ! or 2emporar 8peratin# Permit to a domestic air transport operator! &ho! thou#h not possessin# a le#islative franchise! meets all the other re%uirements prescribed b the la&. 'uch re%uirements &ere enumerated in 'ection 4+ of D.A. ..:. 2here is nothin# in the la& nor in the Constitution! &hich indicates that a le#islative franchise is an indispensable re%uirement for an entit to operate as a domestic air transport operator. Althou#h 'ection ++ of Article FII reco#nizes Con#ressG control over an franchise! certificate or authorit to operate a public utilit ! it does not mean Con#ress has e(clusive authorit to issue the same. Franchises issued b Con#ress are not re%uired before each and ever public utilit ma operate. In man instances! Con#ress has seen it fit to dele#ate this function to #overnment a#encies! specialized particularl in their respective areas of public service.

Con#ress! b #ivin# the respondent "oard the po&er to issue permits for the operation of domestic transport services! has dele#ated to the said bod the authorit to determine the capabilit and competence of a prospective domestic air transport operator to en#a#e in such venture. 2his is not an instance of transformin# the respondent "oard into a mini*le#islative bod ! &ith unbridled authorit to choose &ho should be #iven authorit to operate domestic air transport services. 2o be valid! the dele#ation itself must be circumscribed b le#islative restrictions! not a >rovin# commission> that &ill #ive the dele#ate unlimited le#islative authorit . It must not be a dele#ation >runnin# riot> and >not canalized &ith ban?s that ?eep it from overflo&in#.> 8ther&ise! the dele#ation is in le#al effect an abdication of le#islative authorit ! a total surrender b the le#islature of its prero#atives in favor of the dele#ate. 20 Con#ress! in this instance! has set specific limitations on ho& such authorit should be e(ercised as 'ection < of D.A. @o. ..:! as amended! sets out the #uidelines or policies to be follo&ed. Eore importantl ! the said la& has enumerated the re%uirements to determine the competenc of a prospective operator to en#a#e in the public service of air transportation. Furthermore! the procedure for the processin# of the application of a Certificate of Public Convenience and @ecessit had been established to ensure the &eedin# out of those entities that are not deservin# of public service. In sum! the 'upreme Court directed respondent Civil Aeronautics "oard to continue hearin# the application of respondent Arand International Air&a s! Inc. for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and @ecessit .