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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. V. CA GR NO. 91359, September 25, 1992 Facts

    Uploaded by

    JM Guevarra
    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the Private Security Agency Law and regulations requiring security agencies to register and be members of the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. (PADPAO). VMPSI was accused by another agency of cut-throat competition for undercutting the minimum contract rates set by PADPAO and its license was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and Philippine Constabulary-Supervisory and Inspection Section for Alien Security was a suit against the State without its consent, as the officials were performing their official duties without malice or negligence

    Copyright:

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

    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. V. CA GR NO. 91359, September 25, 1992 Facts

    Uploaded by

    JM Guevarra
    56 views2 pages
    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the Private Security Agency Law and regulations requiring security agencies to register and be members of the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. (PADPAO). VMPSI was accused by another agency of cut-throat competition for undercutting the minimum contract rates set by PADPAO and its license was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and Philippine Constabulary-Supervisory and Inspection Section for Alien Security was a suit against the State without its consent, as the officials were performing their official duties without malice or negligence

    Original Description:

    T

    Original Title

    T

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the Private Security Agency Law and regulations requiring security agencies to register and be members of the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. (PADPAO). VMPSI was accused by another agency of cut-throat competition for undercutting the minimum contract rates set by PADPAO and its license was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and Philippine Constabulary-Supervisory and Inspection Section for Alien Security was a suit against the State without its consent, as the officials were performing their official duties without malice or negligence

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    56 views2 pages

    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. V. CA GR NO. 91359, September 25, 1992 Facts

    Uploaded by

    JM Guevarra
    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the Private Security Agency Law and regulations requiring security agencies to register and be members of the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. (PADPAO). VMPSI was accused by another agency of cut-throat competition for undercutting the minimum contract rates set by PADPAO and its license was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and Philippine Constabulary-Supervisory and Inspection Section for Alien Security was a suit against the State without its consent, as the officials were performing their official duties without malice or negligence

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. V.

    CA
    GR NO. 91359, September 25, 1992

    Facts:

     Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) alleges that the provisions under
    Section 4 and 17 of Republic Act No. 5487 or the Private Security Agency Law violate the 1987
    Constitution against monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in restraint of trade, and
    tend to favor and institutionalize the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency
    Operators, Inc. (PADPAO) which is monopolistic because it has an interest in more than one
    security agency.
     Respondent VMPSI likewise questions the validity of paragraph 3, subparagraph (g) of the
    Modifying Regulations on the Issuance of License to Operate and Private Security Licenses and
    Specifying Regulations for the Operation of PADPAO issued by then PC Chief Lt. Gen. Fidel V.
    Ramos, through Col. Sabas V. Edades, requiring that “all private security agencies/company
    security forces must register as members of any PADPAO Chapter organized within the Region
    where their main offices are located...”. As such membership requirement in PADPAO is
    compulsory in nature, it allegedly violates legal and constitutional provisions against
    monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in restraint of trade.
     May 12, 1986: A Memorandum of Agreement was executed by PADPAO and the PC Chief,
    which fixed the minimum monthly contract rate per guard for eight (8) hours of security service
    per day at P2,255.00 within Metro Manila and P2,215.00 outside of Metro Manila
     June 29, 1987: Odin Security Agency (Odin) filed a complaint with PADPAO accusing VMPSI
    of cut-throat competition by undercutting its contract rate for security services rendered to the
    Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), charging said customer lower than
    the standard minimum rates provided in the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986.
     PADPAO found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition, hence, the PADPAO Committee on
    Discipline recommended the expulsion of VMPSI from PADPAO and the cancellation of its
    license to operate a security agency. The PC-SUSIA affirmed the findings and likewise
    recommended the cancellation of VMPSI’s license. As a result, PADPAO refused to issue a
    clearance/certificate of membership to VMPSI.
     VMPSI made a request letter to the PC Chief to set aside or disregard the findings of PADPAO
    and consider VMPSI’s application for renewal of its license, even without a certificate of
    membership from PADPAO.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not VMPSI’s complaint against the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA is a suit against the
    State without its consent.

    HELD:
    Yes. A public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or private capacity if he acts
    in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction, however, since the acts for
    which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are being called to account in this case, were performed as
    part of their official duties, without malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be
    had against them in their private capacities. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agrees with the
    Court of Appeals that the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986 does not constitute
    an implied consent by the State to be sued. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate
    from statutory authority, hence, a legislative act, not from a mere memorandum. Without such
    consent, the trial court did not acquired jurisdiction over the public respondents. Petition for
    review is denied and the judgment appealed from is affirmed in toto.

    You might also like