This case concerns the Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) challenging the validity of Department Circular No. 04 issued by the Secretary of National Defense that subjects the VFP to management audits and supervision. The VFP claims it is a private non-government corporation, while the DND argues it is a public corporation under its control based on the Republic Act that created the VFP. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the VFP is a public corporation based on factors such as the language of the founding law describing it as a "public corporation", its requirement to submit reports to the DND, and its performance of sovereign functions to benefit war veterans. Therefore, the DND circular was found to be valid.
This case concerns the Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) challenging the validity of Department Circular No. 04 issued by the Secretary of National Defense that subjects the VFP to management audits and supervision. The VFP claims it is a private non-government corporation, while the DND argues it is a public corporation under its control based on the Republic Act that created the VFP. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the VFP is a public corporation based on factors such as the language of the founding law describing it as a "public corporation", its requirement to submit reports to the DND, and its performance of sovereign functions to benefit war veterans. Therefore, the DND circular was found to be valid.
This case concerns the Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) challenging the validity of Department Circular No. 04 issued by the Secretary of National Defense that subjects the VFP to management audits and supervision. The VFP claims it is a private non-government corporation, while the DND argues it is a public corporation under its control based on the Republic Act that created the VFP. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the VFP is a public corporation based on factors such as the language of the founding law describing it as a "public corporation", its requirement to submit reports to the DND, and its performance of sovereign functions to benefit war veterans. Therefore, the DND circular was found to be valid.
This case concerns the Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) challenging the validity of Department Circular No. 04 issued by the Secretary of National Defense that subjects the VFP to management audits and supervision. The VFP claims it is a private non-government corporation, while the DND argues it is a public corporation under its control based on the Republic Act that created the VFP. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the VFP is a public corporation based on factors such as the language of the founding law describing it as a "public corporation", its requirement to submit reports to the DND, and its performance of sovereign functions to benefit war veterans. Therefore, the DND circular was found to be valid.
Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) v. Reyes service in the land, see or air forces of the PH during wars or military campaigns OR Petition for Certiorari who rendered military service in the AFP Prayer to declare as VOID Department Circular no. 04 of the AND has been honorably discharged or DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND), dated separated after AT LEAST 6 years total June 10, 2002 cumulative active service or sooner separated due to death or disability arising VFP (petitioner) from a wound or injury received or disease - A corporate body organized under RA 2640 (June 18, incurred in line of duty while in the active 1960) service. Angelo T. Reyes (respondent) c. Secretary general of VFP sent a latter to respondent - Secretary of National Defense, who issues the DND Secretary COMPLAINING about the alleged ASSAILED CN. 04 BROADNESS of the scope of the MANAGEMENT Edgardo Batenga AUDIT and requesting the SUSPENSION thereof until such time that specific areas of the audit shall - Undersecretary, who was tasked by the respondent to have been agreed upon. conduct an EXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT AUDIT d. Undersecretary DENIED the letter (reason: there is a of the records of VFP. timeframe) Emmanuel De Ocampo e. Petitioner filed this petition for Certiorari with - Petitioners incumbent president Prohibition a. TRO: implementing DND DEP CN. 4 and a. REYES wrote to DE OCAMPO informing the the ongoing management audit of corporation that they (DND) came across some legal petitioners books of account. bases which tended to show that there is an b. DC No. 4 be declared null and void for organizational and management RELATIONSHIP being ultra vires between VFP and PH Veterans Bank. c. Convert TRO into a permanent one a. (letter) VFP is under the control and supervision of the Secretary of ND. [Sec 1, VFPs CLAIM THAT IT IS A PRIVATE NON- RA 2640] GOVERNMENT CORPORATION. b. (letter) VFP shall make and transmit to the - VFP claims that DND Circular no. 4 is an INVALID President of PH or to the SEC of ND a exercise of respondent Secretarys control and REPORT of its proceedings, including a supervision. FULL & COMPLETE report of receipts and expenditures of whatever kind. [Sec 12, RA - BECAUSE: It is not a public nor a governmental 2640] entity but a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. b. DND Secretary (petitioner) issues the ASSAILED Department CIRCULAR no. 4 entitled Further Central ISSUE: WON VFP is a private corporation. Implementing the Provisions of Sections 1 & 12 of RA 2640 Supreme Court: We are constrained to rule that VFP is in a. CIRCULAR NO. 4: Rules shall apply to the fact a PUBLIC CORPORATION. management and operations of VFP. BECAUSE: b. CIRCULAR NO. 4: Definition of terms, a. RA 2640 An act to create a PUBLIC relationship between DND and VFP, the CORPORATION preservation of the records of all business b. Any act or decisions of the FEDERATION shall be transactions, VFP should submit ANNUAL subject to the approval of Sec. of Defense & PERIODIC reports, and there are attached c. VFP required to SUBMIT annual reports penal provisions of the law upon d. VFP was listed as among the GOCC that will NOT noncompliance. be privatized c. Supervision and control - authority to act e. VFP is an adjunct of the government (Ang bagong directly whenever a specific function is bayani-OFW labor party v. COMELEC) entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate (approve, reverse or modify acts VFP Supreme Court and decisions - Constitution - There is no challenge in the d. Power of control power to alter, modify EXPLICITYLY prohibit creation of VFP in the petition as or nullify or set aside what a subordinate the regulation by special to permit this Court from officer had done in the performance of his laws of private considering tis nullity. duties corporations (except e. Supervision power to see to it that their GOCC) subordinate officers perform their duties 1. VFP does not possess 1. Public office an individual is the elements which would invested with some portion of the qualify it as a public office SOVEREIGN FUCNTIONS of 1 the govt, to be exercised by him o Add nothing to the law and does not affect for the benefit of the public. substantial rights - An office is not rendered inutile by the fact that it is SOVEREIGN FUNCTION the placed under the control of a higher office protection of the interest of war - Circular is perfectly in consonance with RA 2640. veterans is not only meant to - Petition DISMISSED. promote social justice, but is also - Validity AFFIRMED. intended to REWARD patriotism.
Functions of VFP are executive
functions. (Provide immediate and adequate care, benefits and other forms of assistance to war veterans and their surviving spouses and orphans.) 2. VFP funds are not 2. No budgetary appropriations public funds does not prove that it is a private a. No budgetary corporation. appropriations from DBM DBMs mistake will not prevent b. VFP funds future budgetary appropriations to come from the VFP. membership dies Erroneous application of the law c. Lease rentals by public officers does not bar a raised are subsequent coorect application of private in the law. character VFP funds are used for public purposes. 3. Juridical personality of 3. Membership of the VFP is not the VFP emanates from a individual membership of the statutory character. It is a affiliate organizations, but private, civilian federation MERELY the aggregation of the of VETERANS heads of such affiliate voluntarily formed by organizations. veterans themselves 4. ADMIN Code of 1987 4. ADMIN Code is not exclusive does not provide VFP as an attached agency 5. DBM declared that VFP 5. DBM opinion suffers from lack is a non-government of explanation and justification in organization and issues a the certification of non-receipt certificate where said opinion was given. DBM did not furnish explanation for its opinion.
- Petitioner is a public corporation
- Assailed circular did not supplant nor modify the provision of RA 2640 - Secretary of National Defense REQUIRE submission of reports, documents and other papers regarding any or all of the federations business functions - Even assuming that the assailed circular was not published VALIDITY is not affected o Falls under two of the exceptions o Circular is an INTERNAL REGULATION
Bilflex Phil. Inc. Labor Union Et Al. V. Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation and Bilflex (Phils.), Inc. 511 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)
(In Re Petition For Assistance in The Liquidation of The Rural Bank of Bokod (Benguet), Inc., PDIC vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 511 SCRA 123 (2006) )
