In connection with:

Section 30, Article VI, 1987 Constitution

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution
without its advice and concurrence

Petitioner:
Respondents:
Facts:

FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC.

CA AND MARIWASA MANUFACTURING INC.
A thorough scrutiny of the following conflicting provisions is called for:
o Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)
appellate jurisdiction over all final judgment, decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of judicial agencies is vested on CA
o Executive Order No. 226 (Omnibus Investments Code of 1987)
all appeals shall be filed directly with SC within 30 days from receipt of the
order or decision
o Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91 (Prescribing the Rules Governing Appeals to the Court of
Appeals from a Final Order or Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial
Agencies) - the appeal of a quasi-judicial agency shall be taken to the CA
The case arose when the Board of Investments (BOI) granted the petitioners application to
amend its BOI certificate by changing the scope of its registered product from glazed floor tiles
to ceramic tiles. Eventually, oppositor Mariwasa Mfg. Inc. filed an MR of the said BOI decision.
Soon rebuffed in its bid for reconsideration, Mariwasa Mfg. Inc. filed a petition for review with
respondent CA (pursuant to SC Circular 1-91). CA temporarily restrained the BOI from
implementing its decision. The TRO lapsed by its own terms (20) days after its issuance.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and to lift the restraining order contending that CA does not
have jurisdiction over the BOI case, since the same is exclusively vested with the SC (pursuant to
Article 82 of EO 226). Petitioner further argued that the B.P. 129 (Sec. 9(3)) and SC Circular 1-91
(Sec. 1,2,3) cannot be the basis of Mariwasa's appeal to respondent court because the procedure
for appeal laid down therein runs contrary to Article 82 of E.O. 226.
Mariwasa maintains that: whatever inconsistency there may have been between B.P. 129 and
Article 82 of E.O. 226 on the question of venue for appeal, has already been resolved by Circular
1-91 of the Supreme Court, which was promulgated four (4) years after E.O. 226 was enacted.
Petitioner contends that EO 226 cannot be validly repealed by 1-91 because E0 226 grants
substantive right, which under the Constitution, cannot be modified.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the case
(Where and in what manner appeals from decisions of BOI should be filed?)

Ruling:

Yes. SC Circular 1-91 effectively repealed Article 82 of E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and
method of enforcing the right to appeal decisions of the BOI are concerned. Appeals from
decisions of the BOI, which by statute was previously allowed to be filed directly with the
Supreme Court, should now be brought to the Court of Appeals.
Substantive law creates substantive rights; part of the law which creates, defines and regulates
rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action while Adjective or remedial law prescribes
the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion. The substantive right to
appeal from decisions or orders of the BOI under EO 226 remains and continues to be respected.
Circular I-91 simply transferred the venue of the appeals from the decisions of this agency to
respondent CA and a different period of appeal 15 days from notice (Note: in EO 226, 30 days
from receipt of decision). BP 129 is broad and comprehensive. SC 1-91 is but implementary of
said law.
The court issued Circular 1-91 to eliminate unnecessary contradictions and confusing rules of
procedure. SC circular is not strictly a statute or law, it has, however the force and effect of law.
The SC has the power to regulate, procedural aspects such as the court and the manner an
appeal can be bought.
BP 129 is laudable in its objective of providing a uniform procedure of appeal from decisions of all
quasi-judicial agencies for the benefit of the bench and bar. However, Lawmaking system of
country is not perfect. There was an obvious lack of deliberation in the drafting of our laws (esp.

during Marcos regime where the lawmaking power was lodged on the Executive Dept.) which
explains the deviation of some laws from the goal or uniform procedure. Petition dismissed. TRO
is lifted.