Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Meralco Vs Pasay

    Uploaded by

    RmLyn Mclnao
    The Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed a petition before the Supreme Court requesting its members to sit as a board of arbitrators to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies could use MERALCO's bridge. However, the Supreme Court ruled it would be improper for its members to perform such quasi-judicial functions. As the highest judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to exercise purely judicial functions, not administrative or quasi-judicial duties. Therefore, the Court declined MERALCO's request and determined it could not legally sit as arbitrators as stipulated in the relevant law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Meralco Vs Pasay

    Uploaded by

    RmLyn Mclnao
    123 views3 pages
    The Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed a petition before the Supreme Court requesting its members to sit as a board of arbitrators to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies could use MERALCO's bridge. However, the Supreme Court ruled it would be improper for its members to perform such quasi-judicial functions. As the highest judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to exercise purely judicial functions, not administrative or quasi-judicial duties. Therefore, the Court declined MERALCO's request and determined it could not legally sit as arbitrators as stipulated in the relevant law.

    Original Description:

    CASE

    Original Title

    Meralco vs Pasay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed a petition before the Supreme Court requesting its members to sit as a board of arbitrators to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies could use MERALCO's bridge. However, the Supreme Court ruled it would be improper for its members to perform such quasi-judicial functions. As the highest judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to exercise purely judicial functions, not administrative or quasi-judicial duties. Therefore, the Court declined MERALCO's request and determined it could not legally sit as arbitrators as stipulated in the relevant law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views3 pages

    Meralco Vs Pasay

    Uploaded by

    RmLyn Mclnao
    The Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed a petition before the Supreme Court requesting its members to sit as a board of arbitrators to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies could use MERALCO's bridge. However, the Supreme Court ruled it would be improper for its members to perform such quasi-judicial functions. As the highest judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to exercise purely judicial functions, not administrative or quasi-judicial duties. Therefore, the Court declined MERALCO's request and determined it could not legally sit as arbitrators as stipulated in the relevant law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Macalinao, Romielyn P.

    Subject: Constitutional Law 1


    Topic: Prohibition against Quasi-Judicial or Administrative
    Functions
    Title:

    MANILA

    ELECTRIC

    COMPANY

    vs

    PASAY

    TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.


    Reference: G.R. No. L-37878

    November 25, 1932


    FACTS

    Petitioner, Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed a petition


    before the Supreme Court requesting its members to sit as board of
    arbitrators

    to

    fix

    the

    terms

    upon

    which

    certain

    transportation

    companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig bridge of the MERALCO.


    MERALCO submits the petition before the Court by virtue of Act
    No. 1446, Section 11 which states: Whenever any franchise or right of
    way is granted to any other person or corporation, now or hereafter in
    existence, over portions of the lines and tracks of the grantee herein,
    the terms on which said other person or corporation shall use such
    right of way, and the compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by
    such other person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed by the
    members of the Supreme Court sitting as a board of arbitrators, the
    decision of a majority of whom shall be final.
    For every franchise granted, terms as to the usage and
    compensation to be paid to the grantee shall be fixed by the members
    of the Supreme Court sitting as board of arbitrators, a majority vote is
    required

    and

    this

    is

    final.

    Copies

    were

    sent

    to

    the

    affected

    transportation company once of which is the Pasay Transportation


    Company and to Attorney-General which disclaimed any interest. The
    parties to an arbitration may not oust the courts of jurisdiction of the
    matters submitted to an arbitration. It has been held that a clause in a

    contract, providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall
    be referred to arbitrators and to them alone, is contrary to public
    policy and cannot oust the courts of jurisdiction.
    ISSUES
    Whether or not members of the Supreme Court can sit as
    arbitrators and fix the terms upon which transportation companies
    shall comply?
    RULINGS
    No. MERALCO was depending on the case of Tallassee Falls Mfg
    Co vs Commissioners Court where it was held that a state legislature
    authorizing the commissioners' court of a certain county to regulate
    and fix the rate of toll to be charged by the owners of a bridge is not
    unconstitutional as delegating legislative power to the courts. However,
    that is not the question before the Supreme Court. Here, the question
    is not one of whether or not there has been a delegation of legislative
    authority to a court. More precisely, the issue concerns the legal right
    of the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of
    arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act in
    that capacity.
    The Supreme Court is therefore faced with a dilemma. Either
    the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators,
    exercise judicial functions, or the members of the Supreme Court,
    sitting as board of arbitrators, exercise administrative or quasi-judicial
    functions. There is an important distinction between the Supreme
    Court as an entity and the members of the Supreme Court. A board of
    arbitrators is not a "court" in any proper sense of the term, and
    possesses none of the jurisdiction which the Organic Act contemplates
    shall be exercised by the Supreme Court. The first case would appear
    not to fall within the jurisdiction granted to the Supreme Court. More

    so with the second case, where the Supreme Court, sitting as a board
    of arbitrators, be considered as administrative or quasi-judicial in
    nature, which would result in the performance of duties that the
    members of the Supreme Court could not lawfully take it upon
    themselves to perform.
    Therefore, confirming the decision to the basic question at
    issue, the Supreme Court holds that section 11 of Act No. 1446
    contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a democratic
    government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper
    and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of
    arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on
    the petition of the Manila Electric Company. As a result, the members
    of the Supreme Court decline to proceed further in the matter.

    You might also like