2 Petitioners claim that they have been excluded from being selected by

2 petitioners claim that they have been excluded from

This preview shows page 95 - 97 out of 101 pages.

2. Petitioners claim that they have been excluded from being selected by respondent even if they have “available, practicable and usable” pipes that could serve the purpose of the project at a much lower cost. 3. Respondent pleaded to the court to reconsider their restraining order on them so that they may provide adequate water supply to those cities that lack potable water, which is a risk to health and life. 4. Respondent claims that it is not an agency of the state. Sc Ruling 1. Respondent is part of the term “Government” in Sec 2 of the RAC, which recognizes that the respondent’s purpose is to achieve a “nationalistic purpose [by giving] preference to locally produced materials, in purchases, works or projects of the GOVERNMEN T.” They are thus exercising PROPRIETARY governmental functions. 2. It is found that petitioner creates pipes that are not more than 12 inches in diameter. 3. Petitioner claims that although they may not produce the pipe required by the Respondent, they can import it at any time. This is what they deem as “Available.” 4. SC does not believe that this was meant when the law makers considered the word “Available” in the statute. This definition would be straining the very meaning of the word and thus would be unfair. 5. Preliminary injunctions against respondent are thus set aside. Chapter 11
Image of page 95
STATCON CASE DIGEST AND DOCTRINES ATTY. CRISTOBAL 96 | P a g e © Conejos Haulo Laylo CASE FACTS RULING 15. Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez 66 Phil. 259 (1938) 1. Petitioner owns the Nob Fraction mineral claim, situated in Benguet, Mountain Province, and located on public lands by C. L. O'Dowd in accordance with the provisions of the Act of congress of July 1, 1902, as amended by the Act of Congress of February 6, 1905, and of Act No. 624 of the Philippine Commission, relative to the location of mining claims. 2. prior to August 9, 1933, petitioner filed in the office of the Director of Lands an application for an order of patent survey of said claim, which survey was duly authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce and performed by a mineral land surveyor in the former divisions of mines, Bureau of Science, from August 9, 1933, to April 30, 1934, at the expense of petitioner; 3. prior to November 15, 1935, petitioner filed with the mining recorder an application for patent, together with a certificate showing that more than P1,600, worth of labor and/or improvements had been expended by the petitioner upon said claim, 4. that prior to November 15, 1935, the notice of petitioner's application for patent was forwarded by the mining recorder to the division of mines,so that the latter could order the publication of said notice was made once a week for a period of sixty days in the "Philippines Herald," "El Debate," and the Official Gazette, commencing February 13, 1936; Problem: 5. Petitioner has requested the respondents, as Ruling: - A determination of the meaning and scope, of section 1 of Article XII of the Constitution, with reference to mining claims -
Image of page 96
Image of page 97

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 101 pages?

  • Summer '18
  • Law, Supreme Court of the United States

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture