Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

Manila Prince Hotel versus GSIS

his offense. He should have been more loyal to petitioner company from which he has derived his family bread and butter for seventeen years.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case Number V-zero two four seven dash ninety-four, is MODIFIED by deleting the award for separation pay in favor of private respondent Beato Singuran.

SO ORDERED.

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner, versus GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents.

SYLLABUS

One. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; DEFINED .- A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.

Two. ID .; ID .; DEEMED WRITTEN IN EVERY STATUTE AND CONTRACT .- Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being.

Three. ID .; ID .; CONSIDERED SELF-EXECUTING RATHER THAN NON-SELF-EXECUTING .- In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing. .. Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.

Four. ID .; ID .; SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS; LEGISLATURE NOT PRECLUDED FROM ENACTING LAWS ENFORCING PROVISIONS .- Quite apparently, Section ten, second paragraph, of Article twelve is couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute squares with the Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without the self-executing nature of constitutional provisions. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable.

Five. ID .; ID .; ID .; A PROVISION MAY BE SELF-EXECUTING IN ONE PART AND NON-SELF-EXECUTING IN ANOTHER .- Respondents also argue that the non-self-executing nature of Section ten, second paragraph, of Article twelve is implied from the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the same section which undoubtedly are not self-executing. The argument is flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not self-executing because Congress is still to enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation to regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does not by its language require any legislation in order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in another.

Six. ID .; ID .; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PROVISION ON PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS, SELF-EXECUTING .- Section ten, second paragraph, Article twelve of the nineteen eighty-seven Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that - qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium.

Seven. ID .; ID .; ID .; INCLUDES THE NATIONAL RESOURCES AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .- When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.

Eight. ID .; ID .; ID .; MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, EMBRACED THEREIN; FILIPINO FIRST POLICY PROVISION, APPLICABLE IN SALES OF HOTEL STOCKS .- For more than eight decades Manila Hotel has borne mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For sure, fifty-one percent of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the fifty-one percent will have actual control and management of the hotel. In this instance, fifty-one percent of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands. Consequently, we cannot sustain respondents' claim that the Filipino First Policy provision is not applicable since what is being sold is only fifty-one percent of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands.

Nine. ID.; STATE; SALE BY THE GSIS OF fifty-one percent of its share in Manila Hotel Corporation, a state action, subject to constitutional command. In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the government are considered "state action" covered by the Constitution when the activity it engages in is a "public function"; when the government is so-significantly involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his action; and, when the government has approved or authorized the action. It is evident that the act of respondent GSIS in selling fifty-one percent of its share in respondent Manila Hotel Corporation comes under the second and third categories of "state action." Without doubt therefore the transaction, although entered into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore subject to the constitutional command.