ceazar

G.R. No. 86774 August 21, 1991

ENEDINA PRESLEY, petitioner,

vs.

BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Alejandro dela Rosa for petitioner.

J. Vicente G. Sison for private respondent.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

FACTS:

A complaint for specific performance and damages with preliminary injunction was filed by plaintiff-appellee, Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA for short) against TeofiloAlmendras and Rollo Almendras (now both deceased and substituted by defendant-appellant Enedina Presley) for violation of the Deed Restrictions of Bel-Air Subdivision that the subject house and lot shall be used only for residential and not for commercial purposes and for non-payment of association dues to plaintiff BAVA amounting to P3,803.55.

Presley, as lessee of the property, is the owner and operator of 'Hot Pan de Sal Store' located in the same address. At the time the Almendrases bought their property in question from Makati Development Corporation, the Deed Restrictions (Exh. "C") was already annotated in their title (Exh. "B") providing (among others) 'that the lot must be used only for residential purpose' (Exh. "B-1" and "B-2").

When BAVA came to know of the existence of the 'Pan de sal' store, it sent a letter to the defendants asking them to desist from operating the store (Exh. "D").

Under the existing Deed Restrictions aforesaid, the entire Bel-Air Subdivision is classified as a purely residential area, particularly Jupiter Road which is owned by and registered in the name of BAVA.

                During the pendency of the case with this Court, petitioner Enedina Fox Presley died on January 4, 1991. She was substituted by her two daughters as heirs, namely Olivia V. Pizzaro and Consuelo V. Lacson. The issues raised in the instant petition have already been dealt with in the consolidated cases decided by this Court promulgated on December 22, 1988 entitled Sangalang Doctrine.

ISSUES:

Ø  Does the Sangalang Doctrine can be consider in the case at bar?

Ø  Does the Deed of Restrictions entirely wrong?

HELD:

                We have carefully examined the pleadings but have found no reason to reconsider the Sangalang doctrine. In assailing the Court's decision, the private respondent has come out with mere assertions and allegations. It failed to present any proofs or convincing arguments to substantiate its claim that Jupiter Street is still classified as a residential zone. (See Filinvest v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 664 [1990]) No new zoning re-classification, ordinance, certification to the effect or jurisprudence for that matter was brought to the attention of this Court which would necessarily compel us to take a second look at the Sangalang Case. The Court cannot reverse a precedent and rule favorably for the private respondent on the strength of mere inferences.

The respondent court in the case at bar was not at all entirely wrong in upholding the Deed of Restrictions annotated in the title of the petitioners. It held that the provisions of the Deed of Restrictions are in the nature of contractual obligations freely entered into by the parties. Undoubtedly, they are valid and can be enforced against the petitioner. However, these contractual stipulations on the use of the land even if said conditions are annotated on the Torrens title can be impaired if necessary to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of police power. (Ortigas& Co. Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., 94 SCRA 533 [1979]).

G.R. No. 178160, February 26, 2009

BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER VS.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT

CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:

                On 13 March 1992, Congress approved Republic Act No. 7227 creating the Bases Conversion And Development Authority (BCDA). Sec 9 of RA No. 7227 states that the BCDA Board pf Directors shall exercise the power and functions of the BCDA under Sec 10, the functions of the Board include the determination of the organizational structure and the adoption of a compensation and benefit scheme at least equivalent to that of the BangkoSentralngPilipinas (BSP). Accordingly, the Board determined the organizational structure of the BCDA and adopted a compensation and benefit scheme for its officials and employees.

                On 20 December 1996, the Board adopted a new compensation and benefit scheme which included a P10,000 year-end benefit granted to each contractual employee, regular permanent employee, and Board member. In a memorandum dated 25 August 1997, Board Chairman Victoriano A. Basco (Chairman Basco) recommended to President Fidel V. Ramos (President Ramos) the approval of the new compensation and benefit scheme. In a memorandum dated 9 October 1997, President Ramos approved the new compensation and benefit scheme.

                In 1999, the BSP gave a P30,000 year-end benefit to its officials and employees. In 2000, the BSP increased the year-end benefit from P30,000 to P35,000. Pursuant to Section 10 of RA No. 7227 which states that the compensation and benefit scheme of the BCDA shall be at least equivalent to that of the BSP, the Board increased the year-end benefit of BCDA officials and employees from P10,000 to P30,000. Thus in 2000 and 2001, BCDA officials and employees received a P30,000 year-end benefit, and, on 1 October 2002, the Board passed Resolution No. 2002-10-193approving the release of a P30,000 year-end benefit for 2002.

                Aside from the contractual employees, regular permanent employees, and Board members, the full-time consultants of the BCDA also received the year-end benefit.

ISSUES:

Ø  Do the members of the Board of Directors entitled to YEB?

Ø  Does the presumption of good faith may apply to the case at bar?

RULING:

                The granting of YEB x xx is not without x xx limitation. DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-02 dated January 2, 2002 stating, viz:

"2.0	To clarify and address issues/requests concerning the same, the following compensation policies are hereby reiterated:
2.1	PERA, ADCOM, YEB and retirement benefits, are personnel benefits granted in addition to salaries. As fringe benefits, these shall be paid only when the basic salary is also paid.
2.2	Members of the Board of Directors of agencies are not salaried officials of the government. As non-salaried officials they are not entitled to PERA, ADCOM, YEB and retirement benefits unless expressly provided by law.
2.3	Department Secretaries, Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries who serve as Ex-officio Members of the Board of Directors are not entitled to any remuneration in line with the Supreme Court ruling that their services in the Board are already paid for and covered by the remuneration attached to their office." (underscoring ours)

Clearly, as stated above, the members and ex-officio members of the Board of Directors are not entitled to YEB, they being not salaried officials of the government. The same goes with full time consultants wherein no employer-employee relationships exist between them and the BCDA. Thus, the whole amount paid to them totaling P342,000 is properly disallowed in audit.

The Board members and full-time consultants of the BCDA are not entitled to the year-end benefit.


The BCDA claims that the Board can grant the year-end benefit to its members and full-time consultants because, under Section 10 of RA No. 7227, the functions of the Board include the adoption of compensation and benefit scheme.

The Court is not impressed. The Board's power to adopt compensation and benefit scheme is not unlimited. Section 9 of RA No. 7227 states that Board members are entitled to a per diem:

Members of the Board shall receive a per diem of not more than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) for every board meeting: Provided, however, That the per diem collected per month does not exceed the equivalent of four (4) meetings: Provided, further, That the amount of per diem for every board meeting may be increased by the President but such amount shall not be increased within two (2) years after its last increase. (Emphasis supplied)