Case Digest (G.R. No. 217590) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board v. Manila Water Company, Inc. (872 Phil. 577, March 10, 2020), Manila Water Company, Inc. wrote the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (PCAB) on July 9, 2012 for accreditation of its foreign contractors in connection with the construction of waterworks and sewerage facilities. On November 8, 2012, PCAB replied that under Section 3.1, Rule 3 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 4566, only firms with at least 60% Filipino equity could obtain a Regular License, while foreign constructors could secure only a Special License limited to a single project. Finding this nationality-based classification unconstitutional and beyond PCAB’s authority, Manila Water filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 83. The RTC granted the petition on February 24, 2014, declaring the nationality restrictions in Section 3.1 void for unlawfully adding burdens not f Case Digest (G.R. No. 217590) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Antecedents
- On July 9, 2012, Manila Water Company, Inc. (respondent) requested PCAB accreditation of its foreign contractors for waterworks and sewerage facilities.
- On November 8, 2012, PCAB replied that under Section 3.1, Rule 3 of the IRR of R.A. 4566, “Regular Licenses” are reserved to firms with at least 60% Filipino equity; foreign firms must secure “Special Licenses” limited to single projects.
- RTC Proceedings
- Respondent filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief in RTC, arguing Section 3.1 Rule 3 IRR is unconstitutional and exceeds PCAB’s rule-making authority.
- RTC issued a February 24, 2014 Resolution and February 10, 2015 Order declaring Section 3.1 void as an unreasonable classification that adds restrictions not found in R.A. 4566. PCAB’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Parties’ Contentions
- PCAB (petitioner) asserts authority under Sections 5 and 17 of R.A. 4566 to issue and classify licenses, and contends the IRR merely regulates foreign contractors.
- Manila Water contends only Congress may impose nationality requirements (Const. Art. XII, Sec. 10), and PCAB’s provision conflicts with R.A. 4566 and current liberalization policy (DOJ, DTI, PCC inputs).
Issues:
- Whether PCAB validly exercised its delegated rule-making power under R.A. 4566 in promulgating nationality-based license classifications in Section 3.1, Rule 3 of the IRR.
- Whether the nationality-based classification constitutes an unreasonable barrier to foreign contractors and violates economic rights or amounts to unfair competition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)