Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    14.PSPCA Vs Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    AppleSamson
    The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) challenged the Commission on Audit's (CoA) jurisdiction over the PSPCA, claiming it was a private entity not subject to CoA audits. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the PSPCA was incorporated in 1905 as a private corporation under American colonial law, so the "charter test" used to determine if later entities were public or private did not apply. While the PSPCA performs public service in enforcing animal welfare laws, its independence from state control and membership structure demonstrated it remained a private corporation. The Court concluded the total relationship between the PSPCA and the state confirmed its private nature since it was not created by a

    Copyright:

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

    14.PSPCA Vs Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    AppleSamson
    62 views3 pages
    The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) challenged the Commission on Audit's (CoA) jurisdiction over the PSPCA, claiming it was a private entity not subject to CoA audits. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the PSPCA was incorporated in 1905 as a private corporation under American colonial law, so the "charter test" used to determine if later entities were public or private did not apply. While the PSPCA performs public service in enforcing animal welfare laws, its independence from state control and membership structure demonstrated it remained a private corporation. The Court concluded the total relationship between the PSPCA and the state confirmed its private nature since it was not created by a

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    14.PSPCA vs Commission on Audit

    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 Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) challenged the Commission on Audit's (CoA) jurisdiction over the PSPCA, claiming it was a private entity not subject to CoA audits. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the PSPCA was incorporated in 1905 as a private corporation under American colonial law, so the "charter test" used to determine if later entities were public or private did not apply. While the PSPCA performs public service in enforcing animal welfare laws, its independence from state control and membership structure demonstrated it remained a private corporation. The Court concluded the total relationship between the PSPCA and the state confirmed its private nature since it was not created by a

    Copyright:

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

    14.PSPCA Vs Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    AppleSamson
    The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) challenged the Commission on Audit's (CoA) jurisdiction over the PSPCA, claiming it was a private entity not subject to CoA audits. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the PSPCA was incorporated in 1905 as a private corporation under American colonial law, so the "charter test" used to determine if later entities were public or private did not apply. While the PSPCA performs public service in enforcing animal welfare laws, its independence from state control and membership structure demonstrated it remained a private corporation. The Court concluded the total relationship between the PSPCA and the state confirmed its private nature since it was not created by a

    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

    PSPCA vs Commission

    on Audit
    Posted on October 19, 2012

    Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs


    Commission on Audit
    G.R. No. 169752
    September 25, 2007
    Facts:
    PSPCA was incorporated as a juridical entity by virtue of Act No. 1285 by the
    Philippine Commission in order to enforce laws relating to the cruelty inflicted
    upon animals and for the protection of and to perform all things which may tend
    to alleviate the suffering of animals and promote their welfare.
    In order to enhance its powers, PSPCA was initially imbued with (1) power to
    apprehend violators of animal welfare laws and (2) share 50% of the fines
    imposed and collected through its efforts pursuant to the violations of related
    laws.
    However, Commonwealth Act No. 148 recalled the said powers. President
    Quezon then issued Executive Order No. 63 directing the Commission of Public
    Safety, Provost Marshal General as head of the Constabulary Division of the
    Philippine Army, Mayors of chartered cities and every municipal president to
    detail and organize special officers to watch, capture, and prosecute offenders of
    criminal-cruelty laws.
    On December 1, 2003, an audit team from the Commission on Audit visited
    petitioners office to conduct a survey. PSPCA demurred on the ground that it
    was a private entity and not under the CoAs jurisdiction, citing Sec .2(1), Art. IX
    of the Constitution.

    Issues:

    WON the PSPCA is subject to CoAs Audit Authority.


    Held:
    No.
    The charter test cannot be applied. It is predicated on the legal regime
    established by the 1935 Constitution, Sec.7, Art. XIII. Since the underpinnings of
    the charter test had been introduced by the 1935 Constitution and not earlier,
    the test cannot be applied to PSPCA which was incorporated on January 19,
    1905. Laws, generally, have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is
    provided. There are a few exceptions: (1) when expressly provided; (2) remedial
    statutes; (3) curative statutes; and (4) laws interpreting others.
    None of the exceptions apply in the instant case.
    The mere fact that a corporation has been created by a special law doesnt
    necessarily qualify it as a public corporation. At the time PSPCA was formed, the
    Philippine Bill of 1902 was the applicable law and no proscription similar to the
    charter test can be found therein. There was no restriction on the legislature to
    create private corporations in 1903. The amendments introduced by CA 148
    made it clear that PSPCA was a private corporation, not a government agency.
    PSPCAs charter shows that it is not subject to control or supervision by any
    agency of the State. Like all private corporations, the successors of its members
    are determined voluntarily and solely by the petitioner, and may exercise
    powers generally accorded to private corporations.
    PSPCAs employees are registered and covered by the SSS at the latters
    initiative and not through the GSIS.
    The fact that a private corporation is impressed with public interest does not
    make the entity a public corporation. They may be considered quasi-public
    corporations which areprivate corporations that render public service, supply
    public wants and pursue other exemplary objectives. The true criterion to
    determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of

    the relation of the corporate to the State. It is public if it is created by the


    latters own agency or instrumentality, otherwise, it is private.

    http://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/pspca-vs-commission-on-audit/

    You might also like