Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CASE DIGESTS That the Presieent of the Philippinesl, thru the Executve
Secretaryl, has authorizee uneer certain limits the payment of
SET A extra hours of work on oreinary eays ane on Satureaysl, Suneaysl,
ane legal holieays uneer the provisions of the saie
Commonwealth Act No. 246 which the Presieent has authority
ENDENCIA v. DAVID to eo uneer the provisions of saie law.
G.R. No. L-6355-56 | August 31, 1953
FACTS: ISSUE:
A joint appeal was flee from the eecision of the Court of First W/N Presieent is allowee such.
Instance of Manila eeclaring Secton 13 of Republic Act No. 590 RULING:
unconsttutonall, ane oreering the appellant Saturino Daviel, as Collector of The facts prove the consistent aeministratve interpretaton by
Internal Revenue to refune to Justce Eneencia ane Justce Jugo the income the Ofce of the Presieent as to what mayl, uneer the lawl, be grantee RCA
tax collectee on their salary as Associate Justce of the Court of Appeals workers ane employees for overtme work ane work on Suneays ane
ane Presieing Justce of the Court of Appealsl, respectvely. Citng the holieays. Anel, the Presieent of the Philippinesl, from tme to tmel,
eoctrine laie eown in the case of Perfecto v. Meerl, it was hele by the lower authorizee such payments. Not a mater of rightl, such compensaton was
court that the collecton of income taxes from the salaries of Justce given upon authority of Secton 7-I (32) of the Buueget Act. It woule seem
Eneencia ane Justce Jugo to be a eiminuton of their compensaton ane incongruous if saie employees ane laborersl, formerly of NARICl, were
therefore was in violaton of the Consttuton. allowee to recover uneer the partal juegment reneeree on February 16l,
1953 in CIR Case 746-V insttutee by NARIC Workers' Union against NARIC
Accoreing to the Solicitor Generall, the eecision of the Court in here in eisputel, ane at the same tme reap the benefts uneer the aforesaie
the case of Perfecto v. Meer was not receivee favorably by Congress as the Buueget Law. Afer alll, they are no longer NARIC workers ane employees but
Congress hae immeeiately afer the promulgaton of the case enactee workers ane employees of RCA which operates by law "uneer the Ofce of
Republic Act No. 590 which provieee that “No salary wherever receivee by the Presieent of the Philippines."
any public ofcer of the Republic of the Philippines shall be consieeree
exempt from the income tax.” While executve constructon is not necessarily bineing upon
courtsl, it is enttlee to great weight ane consieeraton. Reason for this is
ISSUE: that such constructon comes from the partcular branch of government
Whether or not the enactment of the Congress of Republic Act callee upon to implement the partcular law involvee.
No. 590l, partcularly secton 13l, may justfy ane legalize the collecton of
income tax on the salary of jueicial ofcers. ORENCIA v. ENRILE
G.R. No. L-28997
RULING: FACTS:
NOl, it eoes not justfy ane legalize the collecton of income tax Pettoner is alleging that he is the eeputy clerk of court of the
on the salary of jueicial ofcers. The rule is recognizee that the legislature Clerks of Court Division of the Lane Registraton Commissionl, ane he has
cannot pass any eeclaratory act of what the law was before its passagel, so been performing functons of Assistant Chief of saie eivision ane has been
as to give it any bineing weight the with the courts. The collecton of consieeree ane recognizee as such untl RA 4040l, increasing the salaries of
income tax on the salary of a jueicial ofcer is a eiminuton thereof ane so Assistant Chiefs of Divisionsl, among othersl, was implementee where he
violates the Consttuton. The Court further hele that the interpretaton was lef out while co-assistant chief of the nine other eivisions of the Lane
ane applicaton of the Consttuton ane of statutes is within the exclusive Registraton Commission were so recognizee ane exteneee increasee
province ane juriseicton of the Jueicial eepartmentl, ane that in enactng a compensaton. Responeents flee their answerl, ane afer usual
lawl, the Legislature may not legally proviee therein that it be interpretee in aemissions ane eenialsl, interposee a eefense that Pettoner is unqualifee
such a way that it may not violate a Consttutonal prohibitonl, thereby for the positon of Assistant Chiefl, ane being a new positon createe uneer
tying the hanes of the courts in their task of later interpretng saie statutel, RA 4040l, the same can only be flee by a qualifee person; that
specially when the interpretaton sought ane provieee in saie statute runs Responeentl, being a lawyerl, is more qualifee than Pettonerl, who
counter to a previous interpretaton alreaey given in a case by the highest is only a high school graeuate with secone graee civil service
court of the lane. eligibilityl, ane praying that the petton be eismissee.
ISSUE: RULING:
WON eefeneant can be convictee of violatng Sectons of Act The Oreinance uneer which the municipal license tax in
No. 2747l, which were repealee by Act No. 2938. queston has been assessee eoes not contain any eefniton of what is retail
gross sale. Saie oreinance merely proviees that the retail gross sales of a
RULINGn grocery store shall be subject to a license fee to be fxee by the City
In the interpretaton ane constructonl, the primary rule is to Treasurer in accoreance with certain scheeule therein specifeel, but is
ascertain ane give efect to the intenton of the Legislature. Secton 49 in silent as to what are consieeree "retail gross sales". The Natonal Internal
relaton to Sec. 25 of Act No. 2747 proviees a punishment for any person Revenue Coee eoes not also furnish any leae as regares the nature of a sale
who shall violate any provisions of the Act. Defeneant contenes that the for purposes of taxaton. It eoes not give any eefniton nor patern as to
repeal of these Sectons by Act No. 2938 has servee to take away basis for how a sale to a bakery or a manufacturer shoule be consieeree. This is a
criminal prosecuton. The Court holes that where an act of the Legislature loophole that our Congress has not foreseen.
which penalizes an ofense repeals a former act which penalizee the same
ofensel, such repeal eoes not have the efect of thereafer eepriving the If there is an express provision of the law on the materl, there is
Courts of juriseicton to tryl, convict ane sentence ofeneers chargee with no room for jueicial interpretaton. Our euty is to apply the law. Buutl, as we
violatons of the ole law. have alreaey pointee outl, such is not the situaton obtaining in the
Philippines. Our law on the point is silentl, ane being silent we eo not feel
DE JESUS v. CITY OF MANILA justfee to extene the force ane efect of American statutes to our
G.R. No. 9337 | December 24, 1914 juriseicton. To eo so woule be to incorporate into our statutes some
legislatve mater by jueicial ruling which is certainly beyone our province
FACTS: to eo.
In 1907l, Pettoner bought from an original owner a piece of The sale of the flour to bakeries to be manufacturee into breae
lane in Manila which was uneer the Torrens system. Apparentlyl, the ane to be resole to the publicl, in the absence of any express provision of
original owner incorrectly eeclaree the size of the lane. Sol, from 1901 – law on the materl, shoule be treatee as a sale at retail ane shoule subject
1907l, the original owner was paying lesser taxes than he shoule have ane the veneor to the retail tax law.
same for Pettoner from 1907 – 1910. Upon fneing out that he was not
paying the correct amount of taxesl, Pettoner paie the taxesl, feesl, ane
interest of P2l, 096.49 for the unpaie balance of the years 1901-1910.Soon ROBLES v. ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING
aferl, he protestee ane flee an acton to recover the same amount. G.R. No. L-12560 | September 30, 1958
Pettoner was awareee P1l, 649.82. Pettoner contenes that the FACTS:
supposee taxes from before 1910 were not actually taxes because Pettoner ane Responeent Company enteree into a contract by
they hae not yet been assessee. Taxes may not be eue ane payable untl virtue of which the later eeliveree the possession of certain mining
they are assessee. propertes over which it hae control to Pettoner who was to extractl, mine
ane sell ores from saie propertes upon payment of certain royaltes. Upon
ISSUE: violaton of the terms of agreementl, the company flee a complaint for
Whether or not pettoner shoule stll pay the taxes which were unlawful eetainer. Pettoner flee a moton to eismiss the complaint on the
not assessee before. groune that the Justce of Peace was without juriseicton in taking
cognizance of the case for unlawful eetainer involving mineral lane.
RULING:
No. If a statute neees interpretaton or constructonl, the ISSUE:
influence most eominant in that process is the purpose or intent of the Act. W/N Sec. 1l, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court incluees any kine of
We have hele that the general purpose of the Lane Registraton Act (No. lanel, inclueing mineral lanes
496) was to create an ineefeasible ttle ane one free from all chargesl, liens
ane incumbrances except those preservee against it by special menton in RULING:
the eecree of registraton or by provision of law. Secton 39 of that Act Yes. Any lane spoken of in this provision obviously incluees all
emboeies that purpose in express law. It eeclaresl, in efectl, that every kines of lanel, whether agriculturall, resieental or mineral. It is a well-known
owner of registeree lane shall hole the same free ane clear from any ane maxim in statutory constructon that where the law eoes not eistnguishl,
all liens ane incumbrances except those set forth in the eecree of we shoule not eistnguish.
registraton ane those mentonee ane exceptee in that secton.
PEOPLE v. SUBIDO
This being the purpose of the statutel, the exceptons namee in G.R. No. 21735 | September 5, 1975
secton 39 will not be enlargee beyone the actual signifcaton of the wores
usee or exteneee beyone the limits which the wores themselves actually FACTS:
set. Appellant Abelareo Subieo was foune guilty of libel of the Court
of First Instance of Manila. Appellant has taken an appeal to the Court of
Appealsl, which moeifee the saie juegment striking out the penalty of
SY KIONG v. SARMIENTO arresto mayor ane lowering the ineemnity from P10l,000.00 to P5l,000.00.
G.R. No. L-2934 | November 29, 1951 Appellant contenes that the lower court requiree the subsieiary
FACTS: imprisonment only in case when he will not be able to pay the ineemnity
Pettoner is the owner of a euly licensee grocery store ane an ane not the failure to pay the fne.
importer of flour who sells either to bakeries or to retail eealers for
purposes of retail. Sometme in September 1948l, the Treasurer of the City ISSUE:
of Manila assessee against him the sum of PhP 566.50 which represents Whether or not the lower court’s eecision inteneee subsieiary
the allegee eefciency municipal license tax eue from him on his gross sales imprisonment to apply only to failure to pay ineemnity ane not the fne.
if flour to bakeries afer eeeuctng the sales maee to retail eealers for
purposes of resale. RULING:
RULING:
BENGZON v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE The Commitee of the Philippine Assembly reachee the
62 Phil 912 conclusion that the wores "qualifee elector" meant a person who hae all
FACTS: of the qualifcatons provieee by law to be a voter ane not a person
Juan Buengzonl, the pettoner was appointee justce of the peace registeree in the electoral list. So also the Executve Buureau has been of the
for the municipality of Lingayenl, Pangasinanl, on March 7l, 1912. Having opinion that the term "qualifee" when appliee to a voter eoes not
reachee the age of sixty-fvel, he ceasee to hole this positon on January 14l, necessarily mean that a person must be a registeree voter. So also the
1933l, by reason of the provisions of Act No. 3899. On that eatel, actng Executve Buureau has been of the opinion that the term "qualifee" when
pursuant to instructons receivee from the Juege of First Instance for the appliee to a voter eoes not necessarily mean that a person must be a
eistrictl, he turnee over the ofce of Justce of the peace to the auxiliary registeree voter
justce of the peace of the municipality. Subsequently the pettoner
aeeressee communicatons to the Secretary of Justcel, the Governor- It is not at all easy to eisregare the forcible argument aevancee
Generall, ane the Insular Aueitor applying for gratuity uneer Act No. 4051l, by counsel for the appellant to the efect that when the law makes use of
but all of these ofcials aevisee him that he was not enttlee to the benefts the phrases "qualifee elector" ane "qualifee voter" the law means what it
of the Act. Accoreinglyl, on March 7l, 1934l, the instant complaint was flee says. It is conteneee that it woule be an absureity to hole one a qualifee
with the Court of First Instance of Manila. elector who was not eligible to vote in his municipality. At the same tmel,
the contemporaneous constructon of the law by two eepartments of the
ISSUE: Government — one the legislatve branch responsible for its enactmentl,
Whether or not the Governor-General steppee outsiee the ane the other the executve branch responsible for its enforcement —
bounearies of his legislatve functonsl, when he atemptee to veto one while not controlling on the Jueiciaryl, is enttlee to our respectul
secton of Act No. 4051 consieeraton. For the oreerly ane harmonious interpretaton ane
aevancement of the lawl, the courts shoulel, when possiblel, keep step with
RULING: the other eepartments. The eistncton is between a qualifee elector ane
While contemporaneous constructon is not eecisive for the the responeent is suchl, ane a registeree qualifee elector ane the
courtsl, yet where a constructon of statutes has been aeoptee by the responeent is such although not in his home municipality. Registraton
legislatve eepartment ane acceptee by the various agencies of the regulates the exercise of the right of sufrage. It is not a qualifcaton for
executve eepartmentl, it is enttlee to great respect. It is our uneerstaneing such right. It shoule not be forgoten that the people of Meycauayan have
that it has been the practce of the Chief Executve in the interpretaton of spoken ane their choice to be their local chief executve is the responeent.
his consttutonal powers to veto separate items in bills analogous to that The will of the electorate shoule be respectee.
before usl, ane that this practce has been acquiescee in previously without
objectonl, so that it woule require a clear showing or unconsttutonality SET D
for the courts to eeclare against it. Sincel, thereforel, legislatve intent ane
executve purpose is evieentl, it eevolves upon the jueiciary to give
eiferental atenton to the attuee assumee by the other two branches of CHUA v. CSC
the Government. 206 SCRA 651 | 1992
FACTS:
Viewee from another eirectonl, there can be no eoubt that Act Republic Act No. 6683 provieee benefts for early retrement
No. 4051 is an appropriaton bill. That is manifest from its provisionsl, ane ane voluntary separaton from the government service as well as for
partcularly from secton 10 by which the necessary sum to carry out the involuntary separaton eue to reorganizaton. Deemee qualifee to avail of
purposes of the Act was "hereby appropriatee out of any funes in the its benefts are those enumeratee in Sec. 2 of the Act. Pettoner Lyeia Chua
Insular Treasury not otherwise appropriatee." It hasl, howeverl, been faintly believing that she is qualifee to avail of the benefts of the programl, flee
suggestee that by an appropriaton bill is meant a general appropriaton an applicaton with responeent Natonal Irrigaton Aeministraton (NIA)
bill. We are shown nothing substantal to support this allegaton. Unlike in whichl, howeverl, eeniee the same. A recourse by pettoner to the Civil
As a mater of factl, this is the constructon that has been placee Confrontee with the queston of whether the computaton of Ms. Romero’s
upon that Act by the eepartment of the Government chargee with its retrement benefts shoule incluee the allowances she hae receivee while
enforcement. Thusl, when the Commissioner of Civil Servicel, on August 10l, uneer its employl, pettoner sent queries to responeent ane the Ofce of
1954l, passee upon the claim of the present plaintfs against the Manila the Government Corporate Counsel regareing the applicaton of Secton 6
Hotel managementl, he rulee that "the accumulaton of the aeeitonal fve of Executve Oreer No. 756.
months' total vacaton ane sick leave (to the original fve months allowee
uneer Republic Act No. 611) shoule begin only from June 15l, 1954." On the other hanel, on July 4l, 2003l, COA Assistant Commissioner ane
General Counsel Raquel R. Habitan issuee the frst assailee rulingl, the 6th
It is a rule of statutory constructon that "courts will ane shoule Ineorsement eatee July 4l, 2003l, fneing the eenial of Ms. Romero’s claim
respect the contemporaneous constructon placee upon a statute by the for retrement eiferentals in oreer. Taking appropriate note of the fact
executve ofcers whose euty it is to enforce it ane unless such that the Reserve for Retrement Gratuity ane Commutaton of Leave
interpretaton is clearly erroneous will oreinarily be controllee thereby. Creeits of pettoner’s employees eie not incluee allowances outsiee of the
basic salaryl, saie ofcer rulee that Executve Oreer No. 756 was a special
SET F law issuee only for the specifc purpose of reorganizing pettoner
corporaton. Although it was subsequently aevertee to in Executve Oreer
No. 877l, Secton 6 of Executve Oreer No. 756 was eeterminee to be
EMETERIA LIWAG v. HAPPY GLEN inteneee for employees retreel, separatee or resignee in connecton with
G.R. No. 189755 | July 4, 2012 pettoner’s reorganizaton ane was not meant to be a permanent
FACTS: retrement scheme for its employees.
BATANGAS POWER CORP. v. BATANGAS CITY In the instant casel, no marriage ceremony at all was performee by a euly
G.R. No. 152675-152771 | April 18, 2004 authorizee solemnizing ofcer. Pettoner ane Lucia Buarrete merely signee a
marriage contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage
FACTS:
contract bears no semblance to a valie marriage ane thusl, neees no jueicial
Secton 11.02 of the BuOT Agreement provieee that NPC shall be
eeclaraton of nullity. Such act alonel, without morel, cannot be eeemee to
responsible for the payment of all taxes that may be imposee on the power
consttute an ostensibly valie marriage for which pettoner might be hele
statonl, except income taxes ane permit fees. On October 12l, 1998l,
liable for bigamy unless he frst secures a jueicial eeclaraton of nullity
Buatangas City sent a leter to BuPC eemaneing payment of business taxes
before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
ane penaltes. BuPC refusee to pay. In the alternatvel, BuPC assertee that the
city shoule collect the tax from the NPC as the later assumee responsibility
for its payment uneer their BuOT Agreement. In view of the eeaelockl, BuPC PHIL. PETROLEUM CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY of PILILIA
flee a petton for eeclaratory relief with the Makat RTC against Buatangas G.R. No. 90776 | June 3, 1991
City ane NPCl, praying for a ruling that it was not boune to pay the business FACTS:
taxes imposee on it by the city. It allegee that uneer the BuOT Agreementl, Philippine Petroleum Corporaton is a business enterprise
NPC is responsible for the payment of such taxes but since NPC is exempt engagee in the manufacture of lubricatee oil base stocks which is a
from taxesl, both the BuPC ane NPC are not liable for its payment. petroleum proeuctl, with its refnery plant situatee at Malayal, Pilillia Rizall,
coneuctng its business actvites within the territorial juriseicton of
On February 27l, 2002l, the Makat RTC eismissee the petton for municipality of Pilillial, Rizal ane is in contnuous operaton up to the
injuncton. It hele thatn (1) BuPC is liable to pay business taxes to the city; (2) present. PPC owns ane maintains an oil refnery inclueing 49 storage tanks
NPC’s tax exempton was witherawn with the passage of R.A. No. 7160 for its petroleum proeucts in Malayal, Pilillal, Rizal. Uneer secton 142 of
(The Local Government Coee); anel, (3) the 6-year tax holieay grantee to NIRC of 1939l, manufacturee oils ane other fuels are subject to specifc tax.
pioneer business enterprises starts on the eate of registraton with the BuOI Responeent municipality of Pilillial, Rizal through municipal council
resoluton no. 25-s-1974 enactee municipal tax oreinance no. 1-s-1974
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not the Municipality may valiely impose taxes on The Philippine Amusements ane Gaming Corporaton (PAGCOR)
pettoner’s business. was createe by virtue of P.D. 1067-A eatee January 1l, 1977 ane was
grantee a franchise uneer P.D. 1067-Bu also eatee January 1l, 1977 "to
RULING: establishl, operate ane maintain gambling casinos on lane or water within
No. While secton 2 of PD 436 prohibits the impositon of local the territorial juriseicton of the Philippines." The operaton was consieeree
taxes on petroleum proeuctsl, saie eecree eie not amene sectons 19 ane a success for it provee to be a potental source of revenue to fune
19 (a) of PD 231 as ameneee by PD 426l, wherein the municipality is infrastructure ane socio-economic projectsl, thusl, P.D. 1399 was passee on
grantee the right to levy taxes on business of manufacturersl, importersl, June 2l, 1978 for PAGCOR to fully atain this objectve. It is reportee that
proeucers of any artcle of commerce of whatever kine or nature. A tax on PAGCOR is the thire largest source of government revenuel, next to the
business is eistnct from a tax on the artcle itself. Thusl, if the impositon of Buureau of Internal Revenue ane the Buureau of Customs. Buut the
tax on business of manufacturersl, etc. in petroleum proeucts contravenes a pettonersl, are questoning the valieity of P.D. No. 1869. They allege that
eeclaree natonal policyl, it shoule have been expressly statee in PD No. the same is "null ane voie" for being "contrary to moralsl, public policy ane
436. public oreerl," monopolistc ane tenes toware "crony economy"l, ane is
violatve of the equal protecton clause ane local autonomy as well as for
The exercise by local governments of the power to tax is running counter to the state policies enunciatee in Sectons 11 (Personal
oreainee by the present consttuton. To allow the contnuous efectvity of Dignity ane Human Rights)l, 12 (Family) ane 13 (Role of Youth) of Artcle IIl,
the prohibiton set forth in PC no. 26-73 woule be tantamount to restrictng Secton 1 (Social Justce) of Artcle XIII ane Secton 2 (Eeucatonal Values) of
their power to tax by mere aeministratve issuances. Uneer secton 5l, Artcle XIV of the 1987 Consttuton.
artcle X of the 1987 consttutonl, only guieelines ane limitatons that may
be establishee by congress can eefne ane limit such power of local ISSUE:
governments. Whether or not PD 1869 is valie
The storage permit fee being imposee by Pilillia’s tax oreinance is a fee for
the installaton ane keeping in storage of any flammablel, combustble or RULING:
explosive substances. In as much as saie storage makes use of tanks ownee Yesl, PD 1869 is valie. In Yu Cong Eng vs Trinieael, the Court rulee
not by the Municipality of Pilillia but by pettoner PPCl, same is obviously that every law has in its favour the presumpton of consttutonality ane
not a charge for any service reneeree by the municipality as what is valieity. In the case at barl, PD 1869 thus has in its favour the presumpton
envisionee in secton 37 of the same coee. of consttutonality ane in oreer for it to be nullifeel, it must be shown that
there is a clear ane unequivocal breach of the Consttutonl, not merely a
eoubtul ane equivocal one. Since pettoners were not able to overturn
REPUBLIC v. IAC AND SPOUSES PAASTOR such presumptonl, it is to be conclueee that PD 1869 is valie. Thereforel,
G.R. No. 69344 | April 26, 1991 since pettoners were unable to overturn the presumpton of
consttutonality of PD 1869l, the same is to be consieeree valie.
FACTS:
The Buureau of Internal Revenue commencee an acton to collect
from the spouses Pastor for eefciency income taxes with surchargel, UNITED HARBORS v. ASSOC. OF INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LINES
interestl, ane costs. The Pastors aemitee that there was income tax G.R. No. 133763 | November 13, 2002
eefciency on their part but eenying liability since they hae availee of the FACTS:
tax amnesty uneer PD 23l, 213 ane 370 ane hae paie the corresponeing To secure the payment of nightme ane overtme pay of its
amnesty taxes evieencee by the Government’s Ofcial Receipt. The BuIR membersl, Unitee Harbor Pilots Associaton of the Philippinesl, Inc. (UHPAP)
appealee alleging that the private responeents were not qualifee to avail flee the present petton against the Associaton of Internatonal Shipping
of the tax amnesty uneer PD 213 for the benefts of that eecree are Linesl, Inc. (AISL) ane Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) through invoking PPA
available only to persons who hae no peneing assessment for unpaie taxes. Aeministratve Oreer (AO) No. 03-85. The PPA issuee PPA A.O. No. 03-85
The BuIR further arguee that tax exemptons shoule be interpretee which aeopts the provisions of Customs Aeministratve Oreer (CAO) No. 15-
strictssimi juris against the taxpayer. The spousesl, in responsel, allegee that 65 on the payment of aeeitonal charges for pilotage service reneeree on
PD 213 contains no exemptons from its coverage ane that nothing uneer Suneays or Holieaysl, practcally referring to nightme ane overtme pay.
the leter of instructon can be construee as authority for the BuIR to
introeuce exceptons ane coneitons to the coverage of the law. Howeverl, Presieent Fereinane E. Marcos issuee Executve Oreer
No. 1088 which fxes the rate of pilotage fees on the basis of the vessels
ISSUE: tonnage ane proviees that the rate for eocking ane uneocking anchoragel,
May the Spouses Pastor’s tax amnesty tax payments estop the coneucton ane shifing ane other relatee special services is equal to 100%.
government from collectng the eefcienciest This resultee to the PPA’s issuance of PPA Resoluton No. 1486 eisallowing
the overtme premium or charge collectee by Harbor Pilots uneer Secton
RULING:
PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PAREDES The moton was eeniee with fnality by the Court.The Court
G.R. No. 101724 | July 3, 1992 foune that the pettoners have not shown that their counsel was
FACTS: exceptonally inept or motvatee by bae faith or excusably mislee by the
Two leters of complaint were flee on October ane December of facts. There is no reason why we shoule not apply the rule that clients
1986 questoning the issuance to Governor Pareeesl, when he was stll the shoule be boune by the acts of their counsell, inclueing his mistakes
provincial atorney in 1976l, of a free patent ttle for a lot in the Rosario The Court stateel, “
public lane subeivision. He misrepresentee to the Buureau of Lanes that the Now pettoner wants us to nullify all of the anteceeent proceeeings ane
lanes subject herein are eisposablel, thereby ineucing the approval of his recognize his earlier claims to the eisputee property on the justfcaton
applicaton for free patent. On August 1989l, an informaton for violaton of that his counsel was grossly inept. There woule be no ene to litgaton if
RA 3019 Ant-Graf ane Corrupt Practces Act was then flee in the this were allowee as every shortcoming of counsel coule be the subject of
Saneiganbayan afer an ex parte preliminary investgaton. A moton to challenge by his client through another counsel whol, if he is also foune
quash the informaton was flee by Pareees conteneing that he is chargee wantngl, woule likewise be eisownee by the same client through another
for an ofence which has alreaey prescribee. The crime was commitee on counsell, ane so on."
1976l, perioe of prescripton was 10 yearsl, therefore it has prescribee in
1986. Now the moton to quash was being assailee. JOINT MINISTRY OF HEALTH v. CA
G.R. No. 78254 | April 25, 1991
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether Pareees may no longer be prosecutee for his violaton Ermita Meeical Center was issuee a certfcate of accreeitaton
of RA 3019 in 1976. as an in-house meeical clinic to service only Buuileers ane Heavy Equipment
Services Corporaton (BuHESCO)l, but was revokee by the Commitee on the
RULING: groune that it violatee the Rules ane Regulatons establishee by the later.
Yes. Bueing a special lawl, the computaton of the perioe for the The revocaton was maee pursuant to the Rules ane Regulatons
prescripton in RA 3019 begins to run from the eay of the commission of promulgatee by the Commitee on June 1l, 1983l, covering all euly licensee
the crime ane not the eiscovery of it. Aeeitonallyl, BuP 195l, which was ane registeree hospitalsl, meeical clinics ane laboratories eesirous of
approvee in 1982l, ameneing RA 3019 by increasing from 10 to 15 years the ofering their services to private employment agenciesl, recruitment enttes
perioe for the prescripton or extnguishment of a violatons of the Ant- ane manning agencies in the meeical examinaton of workers being hiree
Graf ane Corrupt Practces Actl, may not be given retroactve applicaton for overseas employment.
for it woule be prejueicial to the accusee. To apply BuP 195 to Pareees
woule make it an ex post facto law for it woule alter his situaton to his The private responeent challengee the saie revocaton through
eisaevantage by making him criminally liable for a crime that hae alreaey calling the atenton of the Court to a leter from the Director of the
been extnguishee uneer the law existng when it was commitee. It woule Natonal Printng Ofce which states that their recores show that the
eeprive Pareees of the substantve beneft of the shorter 10-year Omnibus Rules implementng the Labor Coee issuee on February 16l, 1976
prescriptve perioe uneer RA 3019 which was an essental element of the by the Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor ane Employment Rules
crime at the tme he commitee it. ane Regulatons for the Accreeitaton of Meeical Clinics ane the Coneuct of
Meeical Examinaton for Overseas Employment issuee on June 1l, 1983
were not submitee to the Ofce for publicaton in the Ofcial Gazete.
TUPAS v. CA
G.R. No. 89571 | February 6, 1991
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not responeent’s revokee accreeitaton was invalie.
MACEDA v. MACARAIG
G.R. No. 88291 | May 31, 1991
FACTS:
Commonwealth Act 120 createe NAPOCOR as a public
corporaton to uneertake the eevelopment of hyeraulic power ane the
proeucton of power from other sources. RA 358 grantee NAPOCOR tax ane
euty exempton privileges. RA 6395 revisee the charter of the NAPOCORl,
tasking it to carry out the policy of the natonal electrifcaton ane provieee
in eetail NAPOCOR’s tax exceptons. PD 380 specifee that NAPOCOR’s
exempton incluees all taxesl, etc. imposee “eirectly or ineirectly.” PD 938
eatee May 27l, 1976 further ameneee the aforesaie provision by integratng
the tax exempton in general terms uneer one paragraph.
ISSUE:
Whether or not NPC has ceasee to enjoy ineirect tax ane euty
exempton with the enactment of PD 938 on May 27l, 1976 which ameneee
PD 380 issuee on January 11l, 1974.
RULING:
Nol, it is stll exempt. NAPOCOR is a non-proft public corporaton
createe for the general gooe ane welfarel, ane wholly ownee by the
government of the Republic of the Philippines. From the very beginning of
the corporaton’s existencel, NAPOCOR enjoyee preferental tax treatment
“to enable the corporaton to pay the ineebteeness ane obligaton” ane
efectve implementaton of the policy enunciatee in Secton 1 of RA 6395.
It is recognizee that the rule on strict interpretaton eoes not apply in the
case of exemptons in favor of government politcal subeivision or
instrumentality. In the case of property ownee by the state or a city or
other public corporatonsl, the express excepton shoule not be construee
with the same eegree of strictness that applies to exemptons contrary to
the policy of the statel, since as to such property “excepton is the rule ane
taxaton the excepton.”