LEX SCEPTICUS

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Burroughs Limited and the Court of Tax Appeals  GR No L-66653                                                                          June 19, 1986 Facts: Burroughs Limited is a foreign corporation authorized to engage in trade or business in the Philippines through a branch office located at De la Rosa corner Esteban Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila. Claiming that the 15% profit remittance tax should have been computed on the basis of the amount actually remitted (P6,499,999.30) and not on the amount before profit remittance tax (P7,647,058.00), private respondent filed on December 24, 1980, a written claim for the refund or tax credit of the amount of P172,058.90 representing alleged overpaid branch profit remittance tax. Issue: Whether or not Burroughs is entitled to any tax credit. Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 should be given a retroactive effect? Ruling: Yes. Respondent concedes at least that

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs Marcos, et al., GR No 120082                                                 September 11, 1996 Facts: Petitioner Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 6958, mandated to “principally undertake the economical, efficient and effective control, management and supervision of the Mactan International Airport in the Province of Cebu and the Lahug Airport in Cebu City, and such other airports as may be established in the Province of Cebu. Since the time of its creation, petitioner MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from payment of realty taxes in accordance with Section 14 of its Charter: "Sec. 14. Tax Exemptions. -- The Authority shall be exempt from realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities." On October 11, 1994, however, the Office of the Treasurer of the City of Cebu, demanded payme

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation G.R. No. 159647                                                     April 15, 2005 Facts: Respondents operated six drugstores under the business name Mercury Drug. From January to December 1996 respondent granted 20% sales discount to qualified senior citizens on their purchases of medicines pursuant to RA 7432 for a total of ₱ 904,769. On April 15, 1997, respondent filed its annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 1996 declaring therein net losses. On Jan. 16, 1998 respondent filed with petitioner a claim for tax refund/credit of ₱ 904,769.00 allegedly arising from the 20% sales discount. Unable to obtain affirmative response from petitioner, respondent elevated its claim to the Court of Tax Appeals. The court dismissed the same but upon reconsideration, the latter reversed its earlier ruling and ordered petitioner to issue a Tax Credit Certificate in favor of respondent citing CA GR SP No. 60057 (May 31, 20

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Algue Inc., and Court of Tax Appeals GR No. L-28896                                        February 17, 1988 Facts: The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company had earlier appointed Algue Inc., as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories and oil manufacturing process.As such,the corporation worked for the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation, until they were able to purchased the PSEDC properties. For this sale, Algue Inc., received as agent a commission of P126, 000.00, and it was from this commission that the P75, 000.00 promotional fees were paid to Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez. Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends that the claimed deduction is not allowed because it was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue Inc., it held that the said amount h

Berba vs Pablo G.R. No. 160032                    November 11, 2005 Facts: Estela L. Berba, a resident of Malate, Manila, was the owner of a parcel of land located at Sta. Ana, Manila covered by TCT No. 63726. A house was constructed on the lot, which she leased to Josephine Pablo and the Heirs of Carlos Palanca sometime in 1976. The lease was covered by a lease contract. Upon its expiration, the lessees continued leasing the house on a month-to-month basis. The lessees failed to pay the rentals due, and by May 1999, their arrears amounted to P81,818.00.  Berba then filed a complaint for eviction and collection of unpaid rentals only against Pablo in the Office of thePunong Barangay.  On June 5, 1999, Berba and Pablo executed an Agreement approved by the pangkat, as follows:             “Ako si Josephine Pablo, naninirahan sa 2338 M. Roxas St., Sta. Ana, Manila, na nasasakop ng Barangay 873, Zone 96, ay nangangako kay GG Robert Berba na nagmamay-ari ng aking tinitiraha

Martinez vs. Martinez GR No. 162084                                                  June 28, 2005 The spouses Daniel P. Martinez, Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-Martinez were the owners of a parcel of land by TCT No. 54334, as well as the house constructed thereon. On March 6, 1993, Daniel, Sr. executed a Last Will and Testament directing the subdivision of the property into three lots, namely, Lots 18-B-2-A, 18-B-2-B and 18-B-2-C. He then handed down the three lots to each of his sons, namely, Rodolfo, Manolo and Daniel, Jr.; Manolo was designated as the administrator of the estate. After the death of the spouses, Rodolfo found a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father on September 15, 1996, where the latter appears to have sold Lot 18-B-2 to Manolo and his wife Lucila.6He also discovered that TCT No. 237936 was issued to the vendees based on the said deed of sale. Rodolfo filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale and cancellation of TCT No. 237936 against his bro

Valencides Vercide vs Judge Priscilla Hernandez AM No. MTJ-00-1265                                             April 6, 2000 Judge Hernandez was charges for grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law for her dismissal of a case which complainant Vericde filed against Galleros for recovery of possession of land. The land is located in Upper Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental. Defendant Galleros is a resident of the same municipality while complainant are residents of Dipolog City. Because of this fact, the case was filed in court without prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa.  Issue: 1. Whether or not the lupon has jurisdiction in this case? 2. Whether or not Judge Hernandez is guilty of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law? Ruling: 1. No, under Sec. 408 of RA 7160: “The lupon shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement…”  and Sec. 408 (f) and Sec. 2, Rul

Atty. Veustiano Tavora vs. Rosario Veloso GR No. L-60367                                   September 30, 1982 Venustriano Tavora, a resident of Marikina owns an apartment in Quiapo, which he leased to Julieta Capati, a resident of Quiapo. On account of an alleged violation of the lease contract, Tavora filed an ejectment suit in manila. Capati filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for failure to bring the dispute first to the barangay for possible amicable settlement under PD 1508. Judge Veloso dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Issue: Whether or not the lupon has jurisdiction over the case? Ruling: No, Section 2 of PD 1508 specifies the condition under which the Lupon of a barangay “shall have authority” to bring together the disputants for amicable settlement of their dispute. The parties must be “actually residing in the same city or municipality.” At the same time Sec. 3 of PD 1508 – while reiterating that the disputants mus

Article II, Sec. 6. “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” This is also called as the Non-establishment clause. The Concept of this provision is that the State has no right to establish a religion, force or influence a person against his will to associate or disassociate himself to a particular religion and to mandate a national religion. The constitutional provisions not only prohibits legislation for the support of any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect, thus forestalling compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship (U.S. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 88 L. ed. 1148, 1153) The non-establishment clause can be summarized as: 1. The prohibition of supporting directly institutional religion but not support which indirectly accrues to churches and church agencies through support given to its members; and 2. Prohibition to both direct and indirect aid to religion when the aid involves preference of one rel

Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th

Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h

Aglipay vs. Ruiz  GR No. L-45459                             March 13, 1937 Facts: The Director of Post announced that he would order the issues of postage stamps commemorating the celebration of City of Manila of the 33 rd International Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic Church pursuant to Act No. 4052 for the purpose of appropriating funds for the making of new postage stamps. Aglipay requested Atty. Vicente Sotto to denounce the matter to the President. It was alleged that Ruiz is in direct violation of the Constitution by issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33 rd International Eucharistic Congress. That such act was violative of Art. VI, Sec. 23 (3) of the Philippines, to wit: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, secretarian, institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any pri

Halagueña, et al. vs PAL  GR No. 172013                                                                 October 2, 2009 Facts: Petitioners were employed as flight attendants of respondent on different dates prior to November 1996. They are members of FASAP union exclusive bargaining organization of the flightattendants, flight stewards and pursers. On July 2001, respondent and FASAP entered into a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement for the years 2000 to 2005 (compulsory retirement of 55 for female and 60 for males). In July 2003, petitioner and several female cabin crews, in a letter, manifested that the provision in CBA on compulsory retirement is discriminatory. On July 2004, petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with issuanceof TRO with the RTC Makati. The RTC issued a TRO. After the denial of the respondent on itsmotion for reconsideration for the TRO, it filed a Petition with the CA. CA granted respondent’s petition

Holganza, et al. vs Judge Apostol  GR No. L- 32953                                                 March 31, 1977 Facts: SSS filed with the lower court a complaint for damages with writ of preliminary attachments against herein petitioners Holganza, et al. for an alleged labor dispute that resulted in strike by the latter. The latter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and with additional objection that the case was filed prematurely. Respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Issue: Whether or not regular courts has jurisdiction over cases for damages involving labor disputes? Ruling: No, in the case of Associated Labor Union v. Gomez the Supreme Court held that, the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIR (now NLRC) in dispute of this character was upheld. To hold otherwise, is to sanction split jurisdiction, which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of Justice. Also in the case of Progressive labor Association v

I am writing this for persons who had raised a doubt about their religion. I am also encouraging persons who didn't mind thinking about their religion but nevertheless practiced or tolerated the religious practices. Now is the chance to think skeptical about it, whatever answer you find, it will definitely change your future. I was also a doubter once, I want to seek the truth and the reality of this world. I could say I was a closet atheist, I was really scared that other people specially my friends will know that I don't share the same belief as they do. I had hidden the truth and only talked to myself about this for so many years. Until I knew others who share the same ideas. The happiness and relief that you can talk to other persons without the fear of being persecuted was great. After that I resurfaced my doubts and seeked the answers to my question. During the inception of my doubts I started reading science books. I recommend the books of Stephen Hawking, they are