DOJ Opinion No. 019, s. 1998

DOJ OPINION NO. 019 , s. 1998 February 19, 1998 Mr. Jose A. Cabatuando, Jr. Assistant Vice-President Criminal Litigation Philippine Airlines Post Office Box 1955 Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for opinion as to "whether Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) is exempted from the payment of building permit fees under Section 131 ( sic ) of the National Building Code (P.D. 1096)". The query, it appears, was precipitated by the criminal complaint (IS. No. 97-5252) for violation of P.D. No. 1096 commenced by the Pasay City Engineers Office against Mr. Jose Aguilar, PAL's Senior Assistant Vice President for Construction and Facilities Maintenance before the Pasay City Fiscal's Office in connection with PAL's on-going construction of an additional office building at its Inflight Center. aisadc Relying Upon our opinion (No. 44, s. 1997), addressed to the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to the effect that PAL is exempted from the payment filing fees relative to its application for an increase of its authorized capital stock, it is your position that the rationale in said opinion is "equally applicable in the instant case"; hence, the elevation of the issue to this office for determination. We take it that the issue is raised in relation to Section 301 of the National Building of the Philippines which mandates, to wit: "SEC. 301. Building Permits . No person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building is located or the building work is to be done." With regret, we have to decline the opinion requested. It bears stress, at the outset, that pursuant to law and established precedents, the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney General, renders opinion or gives legal advice only for and upon request of national government functionaries such as heads of departments and chiefs of bureaus and offices of equivalent rank and then, only on questions of law arising in the performance of their respective powers and duties. Accordingly, he has in practice, consistently declined to render opinion or give legal advice to other government officials and to private individuals and entities (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 114, s. 1994; No. 116, s. 1985; No. 43, s. 1981)." Besides, any opinion that may be rendered on your query would serve no useful purpose since such opinion, being advisory in character, will neither be conclusive nor binding upon prosecuting officers upon whom devolve the legal duty of deciding whether or not to file a complaint for violation of the applicable laws after an investigation into the facts of the case and a determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution (Secretary of Justice Ops. No. 189, s. 1975 and No. 29, s. 1976, citing Madella vs. Aquino, 104 Phil. 433 [1958], Gonzales vs. CFI of Bulacan, 63 Phil. 846 [1926]. Such opinion could also be misconstrued as undue interference in or intrusion into the exercise of the discretion of the prosecuting officers in making such determination, which discretion must be free from pressure and other irrelevant considerations" (id., citing People vs. Santos, 30 SCRA 100 [1969]; U.S. vs. Abanzado, 37 Phil. 658 [1918]; also, Opn. No. 67, s. 1984)." Finally, to rule on your query would be tantamount to reviewing the action taken by the Pasay City Engineer/Building Official, as contained in his letter of September 30, 1997. Unfortunately, however, this Department exercises no revisory authority over the action taken by said city official, and is not inclined to adopt such course of action as may amount to undue interference in the performance of the functions of said city building official (id., No. 9, s. 1980). Very truly yours, (SGD.) SILVESTRE H. BELLO III Secretary