Del Mar vs.

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation

Issue: Whether the franchise granted to the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(PAGCOR) includes the right to manage and operate jai-alai?
PAGCOR government-owned and controlled corporation under PD 1869
- requested for legal advice from Secretary of Justice whether it is authorized by its Charter?
Sec. of Justice Opinion 67, Series of 1996: the authority of PAGCOR to operate and maintain
games of chance or gambling extends to jai-alai.
- same opinion also from Solicitor General
- thus, PAGCOR started the operation of jai-alai.
Petitioner: Raoul B. del Mar filed Petition for Prohibition to prevent PAGCOR from managing
and operating jai-alai or Basque pelota games by itself or in agreement with Belle Corp
- devoid of any basis either from Constitution or PAGCORs own charter
Belle Corp + PAGCOR + FILGAME however entered into agreement
- Belle will make available the infrastructure facilities and funding
- PAGCOR handles actual management and operation of jai-alai
Del Mar: Supplemental Petition for Certiorari questioning the validity to enter into such
agreement of jai-alai
- suing as taxpayers and members of the House of Representatives
Petitioners:
- jai-alai is prohibited under RPC / Anti-Gambling Law
- jai-alai is not a game of chance
Solicitor General:
- should be dismissed because this petition could only be filed by Solicitor General
- jai-alai is included in the charter of PAGCOR
Court jurisdiction (yes) & legal standing (taxpayers-public fund and members of HOR)
Main Issue:
Franchise: special privilege conferred upon a corporation/individual by a government duly
empowered legally to grant it.
- it is a privilege of public concern should be reserved for public control and administration
- emanates from sovereign power
1) manner of granting franchise
2) to whom it may be granted
3) mode of conducting business
4) character and quality of the service to be rendered
5) duty of the grantee to the public in exercising the franchise
- absence of these rejected
History of PAGCOR
- Pres. Marcos created PAGCOR through PD 1067-A to integrate all games of chance
- to prevent proliferation (rapid increase) of illegal casinos or clubs conducting games of
chance
- PD 1067-D-franchise to maintain gambling casinos the sections do not mention of jai-alai;
only gambling casinos
- PD 1869 consolidating and amending PDs 1067-A and 1067-B, reiterated the nature
- PD 810, 1124, and 1966 gives franchise of Philippine Jai-alai and amusement corporation
controlled by Romualdez to operate jai-alai
---- REVOKED BY EO 169 of Cory Aquino but didnt revoke PAGCORs

PAGCOR cant maintain that Sec 10 of PD 1869 grants franchise to operate jai-alai and
nothing anywhere says that they can operate jai-alai
- INTENT: it was not Marcos intent to grant PAGCOR franchise to operate jai-alai because
before PAGCOR he created PH Jai alai and Amusement Corp
- Marcos also revoked the power of Local government to grant jai-alai franchises
- NO COMPETITION
JAI-ALAI is a different game terms and conditions imposed on a franchisee are spelled out
in standard form
- law, executive orders, and decrees franchise to operate jai-alai is granted solely for the
purpose and the terms defined THERE IS NONE IN PD 1869 as compared to PD 810 AND EO
135
- PAGCOR operation of gambling casinos alone
Lopez & Sons, Inc vs. Court of Tax Appeals
Lopez & Sons imported hexagonal wire netting from Hamburg, Germany
Manila Collector of Customs assessed the corresponding customs duties - paid
- Reassessed so, additional customs duties in the amount of 1, 966.59 were imposed upon
petitioner
Lopez & Sons appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
- Tax Court: dismissed the appeal it had no jurisdiction to review decisions of the Collector of
Customs of Manila citing Section 7 of RA 1125
- Lopez & Sons appealed to SC
Sec 7 RA 1125:
CTA shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal
1) decisions of the collector of internal revenue
2) decisions of the commissioner of customs
3) decisions of provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals
Sec 11:
any person, association, or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the
Collector of Internal revenue, collector of customs, or #3
Discrepancy bet. 7 and 11 (Commissioner and Collector)
- they become meaningless and unenforceable
these should be harmonized and reconciled to give effect to the whole Act
SC and Solicitor General: there is a CLERICAL ERROR in SECTION 11
- it should be commissioner of customs!
- Customs law: the commissioner of customs is the chief of the bureau of customs has
jurisdiction over the whole country as regards the enforcement of the Customs Law
- 16 collectors of customs for 16 collection districts - subordinates to the commissioner
SEC 1380
- Review by Commissioner: person aggrieved by the decision of the collector of customs give
written notice to the collector signifying his desire to have the matter reviewed by the
commissioner
Rules of Statutory Construction: it is not the letter but rather the spirit of the law and intention
of the legislature that is important and what matters.
- should be construed according to spirit and reason
It is within the province of the court to correct said error
- carry out and give due course to the true intention of said Legislature

- Section 11 mere complement or implementation of Sec 7. Sec 7:jurisdiction; 11: persons

affected
Petitioner: a decision by the collector can be appealed to CTA to direct it to the Commissioner
nope
- an appeal to the commissioner purely administrative
- appeal to CTA- purely judicial
- CTA NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Philippines American Drug Co., CIR (Collector of Internal Revenue)
Issue: W/N the difference of 0.015 (premium on dollar charged by the bank to the importer
Philippine American Drug Co. for the purchase of US dollar) should form part of the landed
cost of the imported articles? For the purpose of advance sales tax!
Court of Tax Appeals: upholding the validity of the decision of the CIR imposing sales tax on
the bank premium of 0.015 amounted to 10, 243.13
CIR invokes SEC 183 (B): Payment of percentage taxes:
- when imported articles, % taxes shall be paid in advance by importer and pror to the release
from customs based on import invoice value (incld. Freight, postage, insurance, commission,
customs duty, and all similar charges)
WHETHER THE BANK CHARGE FALLS UNDER THIS?
Genato Commercial Corporation vs CTA -0.015 should include! Intent of congress: include All
charges whether specified or otherwise!
Petitioner invokes EJUSDEM GENERIS: general words follow a designation of particular
subjects or classes of persons, meaning of general words will ordinarily be presumed to be
restricted by the particular designation, class or nature as those specifically enumerated
- not enumerated , 0.015
Court disagrees! Intent: include all charges all expenses incurred by the importer to bring
the importation into the country
- EJUSDEM GENERIS: doctrine is not of universal application
- application must yield to manifest intent of Congress
Parity Exchange Law: legal rate of exchange is 2 for every dollar
- there might be difference paid by the importer in purchase of foreign exchange
- should declare difference increase the cost in completing the importation
PH drug co change in wording of law 1) based on total value thereof at the time they are
received by the importer and all similar charges.
2) based on import invoice value thereof and all similar charges
even if 1) total value or 2) import value result will be the same tax is to be based upon
total landed cost of the imported articles in Genato Case
The collector has the power to reassess and collect any additional tax upon the returns for
said years, even after death of the tax payer
CTA AFFIRMED
NAPOLCOM vs De Guzman
RA 6975: An act establishing the PNP under a reorganized DILG
SEC 39 of RA 6975: Compulsory Retirement

- attainment of 56 y/o rank of Chief Superintendent, director, deputy director general may
allow his retention for inextensible period of 1 year.
NAPOLCOM sent notices to private respondents members of the defunct Philippine
Constabulary are all reached 56 y/o.
Private respondents filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for the issuance of an
ex parte restraining order/injunction before RTC
- SEC 39 of RA 6975 cant be applied since they are also covered by SEC 89
SEC 89:
Within the transition period of 4 years, members of INP shall be considered compulsory retired
1) 60 y/o on first year of the effectivity of this act
2) 59 2nd year
3) 58 3rd year
4) 57 4th year
- respondents: INP includes both former members of PH constabulary and local police force
Petitioner: 4 year transition of SEC 89: only to local police force
- PC retirement age is 56 under AFP law
Respondent judge: issued restraining order followed by writ of injunction
- INP in Sec 89 of PNP law includes PNP SEC 39 shall be operative after the lapse of 4 year
transition period
- intention of the congress might have been INP local police forces
- PD 765: PC: principal component of the Integrated National Police (INP)
Petitioners disagree with the use of INP in SEC 89 does not have the same meaning under PD
765:
- INP composed of PH constabulary , as the nucleus, and police forces
Private respondents: INP in SEC 89 refers to INP in PD 765
RA 6975 (the questioned law with the retirement)
- SEC 23: PNP initially consisted of the members of police forces who were turned into INP
and PC
- SEC 85: Phase of implementation
-- use of term INP not synonymous to PC so INP in SEC 89 does not include PC
- SEC 90: INP civilian component of the PC-INP
- so there is a definition of INP already, so no need to check on the meaning but if theres
doubt, meaning during the legislative deliberations may be adopted
Bicameral Conference Committee: 56 ang retirement age ng PC!
- police will retire at 60!
Legislative intent: SEC 89 only to LOCAL POLICE FORCE
- PC were already retirable at 56 y/o while local police force retirable at 60
- reasonableness of classification
1) must be based upon substantial distinctions
2) must be germane to the purpose of law
3) must not be limited to existing conditions only
4) must apply equally to all members of the same class
RESPONDENT JUDGE DECISION REVERSED AND SET ASIDE
Writ of injuction lifted
Petition granted
CITY OF NAGA vs AGNA

1970 - City of Naga enacted Ordinace # 360 CHANGING and AMENDING the graduated tax
on quarterly gross sales of merchants to percentage tax on gross sales
Private respondents paid taxes to City of Naga pursuant to said ordinance
- claim for refund difference of amounts they paid and under Ordinance 4
- Ordinance 360 not in effect in 1970 but in the next year
- the taxes they paid were illegal and should be refunded
City Treasurer denied the claim for refund
Private respondents filed a complaint with CFI of Naga
- seeking to have Ordinance # 360 to be declared effective only in 1971
- enjoined from enforcing Ordinance # 360
Petitioner: in accordance with RA 305
- an ordinance takes effect after 10th day following its passage unless otherwise stated in said
ordinance
- counterclaimed for 20,000 as exemplary damages unlawful and malicious filing of claim
Respondent Judge: Ordinance 360 enforceable in 1971 so, reimburse them!
Petitioner: RA 305 sec 14 10th day following its passage
- transmitted to Mayor on June 25, 1970 not acted upon by until Aug 4, 1970 from June 15
June 25: no return either veto or approval deemed approve
- RA 2264 (Local Autonomy Act) Sec 2 15th day! more relevant cause refers to effectivity of
a tax ordinance
Private respondents SEC 2309 if Revised Administrative Code:
- a municipal license tax subject to change enacted prior Dec 15 of any year after the next
succeeding year But, entirely new enacted during quarter year, effective at beginning of any
subsequent quarter
- Ordinance 360 which changes so take effect after a year
SEC 2309 OF RAC or SEC 2 OF RA 2264?
- Is SEC 2309 repealed by RA 2264? No absence of words about it
- considered in PARI MATERIA relate to same person or thing, or same class of persons or
things, same purpose or object
--- rule of statutory construction they should be construed together
----- to form part of one uniform system
----- if they cant be reconciled, the new provision shall prevail
- WE DONT SEE CONFLICT bet. Them.
- can be reconciled by applying the first clause of SEC 2309
- SEC 2309: refers to effectivity of an ordinance changing or repealing a municipal license tax
already in existence
- SEC 2 RA 2264: effectivity of an ordinance creating an entirely new tax
- in question, changes the graduated sales tax on gross sales of dealers of merchandise and
sari-sari merchants to % tax on gross sale --- SEC 2309!!!
- effective in next year 1971
- should be refunded
CENTENO vs VILLALON-PORNILLOS
Samahang Kantandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay fund drive for the renovation of the chapel of
Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan
- Martin Centeno, chairman of the group, and Yco approached Judge Angeles, resident of
Tikay, and solicited from her 1,500 pesos.
- w/o permit from DSWD
Judge Angeles complained against them for violation of PD 1564 / Solicitation Permit Law
before Muni T C

Petitioners motion to quash the info on the ground facts do not constitute offense
- only covers solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes
MTC guilty! Sentence to pay 200 pesos
- recommended be pardoned because they acted in good faith
Centeno and Yco appealed to RTC
- Yco withdrew so only Centeno now
- RTC affirmed MTC but modified to 6 mos imprisonment and 1,000 pesos
W/N the solicitation for religious purposes are within PD 1564?
Petitioners:
1) religious purposes not expressly included in the provisions of the statute
2) penal laws are to be construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of the
accused
3) abridgment of right to freedom of religion
SEC 2 OF PD 1564:
- desiring to solicit for charitable or public welfare shall first secure a permit from Regional
offices of DSWD issued by Regional Director
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS where a statute, by its terms, is expressly
limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to
others.
- confine it to the terms mentioned
- charitable and religious treated separately and independently of each other
- PD 1564: merely stated charitable or public welfare purposes never intended to include
solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage
- religious not interchangeable with charitable
to allow the substitution of words, would be prejudicial to the petitioner
- FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE: all penal legislations should be adopted in favor of the accused
- strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused
- if ambiguous and admits 2 reasonable but contradictory constructions, preferred yung in
favor of the accused!
- PRINCIPLE: acts in and of themselves innocent and lawful cannot be held to be criminal
unless there is a clear and unequivocal expression of the legislative intent to make them such
- whatever is not in a penal statute, WALA TALAGA.
- PURPOSE: to provide a precise definition of forbidden acts.
RESTRICTION ON THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE GUARANTEED UNDER CONSTITUTION
- the solicitations for the construction of the church is a social concern involve public welfare
- subject of religion has a double aspect : freedom to believe, and freedom to act
- first is absolute, second is conduct and remains to be subject of regulation
- not everything can be tolerated
- general regulation in solicitation is for the interest of public safety, peace, comfort, or
convenience
- state has authority under police power!
NOT WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF PD 1564 cant be criminally liable!
US vs GO CHICO
Go Chico is charged with violation of SEC 1 of ACT # 1696 of PH Commission
- Any person who shall expose, cause, or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own
premises or elsewhere any flag, banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection
in the PH islands
- to designate those in armed rebellion, by public enemies, or of Katipunan Society
- punished by not less 500-5,000 imprisonment not less 3 mos, not more 5 years

CFI- guilty of crime charged 500 pesos

Appealed to SC
Go Chico displayed in one of the windows of his store, # 89 Calle Rosario, a number of
medallions and flag used during the late insurrection in PH to identify those armed
insurrection against US
- ignorant of the existence of a law against that
- arguments: 1) criminal intent must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
2) prohibition of law against the use of what was actually used during the PH insurrection
SC
- not necessary that Chico acted with criminal intent
- act complained of is itself produces pernicious effect statute seeks to avoid like this law
at bar- display of flag or emblem
People vs Kibler: sale of adulterated milk act alone is crime
Gardner vs People not be removed from office except After notice in writing if yes, guilty
of misdemeanor if the offense is merely technical, punishment can be made correspondingly
nominal
Fiedler vs Darrin: an act is illegal, intent is immaterial
Commonwealth vs Murphy in general, there must be criminal intent others dont need
Act under consideration here! legislators: criminal intent is not necessary. -- ---Embraces no
word implying that the prohibited act shall be done knowingly
- act is the crime
- we do not believe that it is only applicable to identical banners nonsense!
- the law was not describing a particular flag but a type of flag
Penal statute construed strictly carefully safeguard the rights of the defendant
- not also to defeat the obvious purpose of the legislature
- ACT SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC. vs MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF HINABANGAN,

SAMAR
Municipality of Hinabangan Ordinance # 7 Series of 1960 An ordinance imposing a
municipal license tax on the gross outputs of the mines and other business; its imposition and
penalties thereof within the jurisdiction of this municipality
- gross outputs: total actual MV of minerals from mine
- impose a graduated municipal license fees on any occupation or business in the municipality
to any corporation based on gross outputs
- payment at the end of each calendar year no case exceed beyond 15 days of succeeding
year
Marinduque petitioner operating the only mine in Hinabangan
- filed declaratory relief in CFI
- questioning the validity of the ordinance
Court a quo declared the ordinance illegal
Municipal council Ordinance # 7 impose a tax illegal because of double taxation null and
void
Marinduque Sec 2 of Ordinance 7 does not impose a tax no clear and express imposition
of a charge

A statute will not be construed as imposing a tax unless does so clearly, expressly, and it
unambiguously
- tax cant be imposed without clear and express words for that purpose
Ordinance
- not only there are no words imposing a tax doubt: intention is to levy a tax for revenue or
charge a free for permitting the business to be carried on
- taxes may not be imposed by implication
- INVALID
- RA 2264 SEC 2 PAR 1: municipalities and municipal districts shall not impose any percentage
taxon sales or other taxes in any form
- Ordinance # 7 prescribes tax based on sales contrary to statute RA 2264 must not levy or
impose TAXES IN ANY FORM BASED ON SALES
AFFIRMED COUT A QUO