You are on page 1of 4

38 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.

accordance with the rules and regulations of


American Express International, Inc. BSP.
G.R. No. 152609 June 29. 2005
Panganiban, J. HELD:
The law is clear. Services performed
FACTS: by VAT-registered in the Philippines, with
The Philippine branch of American services mentioned in Section 4.102 (b),
Express International, Inc. is a servicing unit and paid in acceptable foreign currency and
of American Express International – accounted for in accordance with the rules
Hongkong Branch and is engaged primarily and regulations of BSP, are zero-rated.
on collections of Annex-HK receivables from Respondent facilitates collection and
card members situated and payment of payment of receivables belonging to its non-
establishments in the Philippines. As a resident foreign client, for which it gets paid
registered BIR VAT taxpayer, AMEX filed its in acceptable foreign currency inwardly
quarterly VAT returns for the period of emitted in conformity with BSP. Upon the
January- December 1997. On April 1999, enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1997,
AMEX filed with BIR a letter-request for the which substantially carried over the
refund of its 1997 excess input taxes, citing particular provisions on zero-rating of
as basis Section 110B of the 1997 Tax services under Sec. 102 (b) of the Tax
Code. It also relied on VAT Ruling No. 080- Code, the principle of legislative approval of
89, dated April 3, 1989 which states that the administrative interpretation by re-
service income of the Amex is automatically enactment clearly obtains. The Congress is
zero rated effective January 1, 1988. presumed to have re-enacted the law with
Respondents based their assertion on tax full knowledge of the contents of the
refund on Section 106 that says that those revenue regulation then in force regarding
sales are zero-rated or are effectively zero- the VAT.
rated shall be entitled for a refund of input
taxes two years after the close of the 39 Chua vs. Civil Service Commission
taxable quarter, as well as Section 8 that G.R. No. 88979 February 7, 1992
says that a sale by a VAT-registered person Padilla, J.
of goods and or services taxed at zero rate
shall not result in any output tax. FACTS:
Refundable is his purchase of goods or On December 2, 1988, R.A. No.
services related to zero-rated sale and is 6683 was approved to provide benefits for
tallied as input tax. However, the CIR early retirement and voluntary separation
countered AMEX claims stating that Tthe from the government service as well as
claim for refund is subject to investigation by involuntary separation due to reorganization
the BIR and taxes paid and collected are to all regular, temporary,
presumed to have been made in
accordance with laws and regulations, casual and emergency employees with
hence not refundable. minimum 2 years of govt. service except for
The CTA rendered a decision in members of AFP and PC-INP. On January
favor of AMEX, holding that its services are 30, 1989, Lydia Chua, hired by the NIA for
subject to zero-rate. CA affirmed this over 15 years as a coterminous employee
decision and further held that respondent’s of 4 successive projects, filed application to
services were “services other than the avail benefits of the program with the NIA
processing, manufacturing or repackaging and was denied. Instead, she was offered
of goods for persons doing business outside separation benefits. She sent a letter for
the Philippines” and paid for in acceptable reconsideration to the CSC but was also
foreign currency and accounted for in denied.
She then filed this petition to the SC 40 Cabuatan vs. Uy Hoo
arguing that; 1) She does not belong to any No. L-2207 January 23, 1951
of the exclusions mentioned under Joint Bautista Angelo, J.
DBM-CSC Circular Letter No. 88-1; 2) is a
full time employee of the NIA entitled to all FACTS:
the regular benefits by CSC and; 3) She On March 18, 1942, Cabuatans sold
held a permanent status as Personal to Uy Hoo, married to By Siat, and Siy
Assistant A under the Administrative Hong, two parces of land in Manila. On
Service and rendered almost 15 years of November 15, 1947, the case of Krivenko
faithful, continuous service in the vs. Register of Deeds was decided by the
government. However, CSC and NIA SC h8ilding that a conveyance of a
contend that her employment is co- residential land to aliens infringes Sec.5,
terminOus with the Watershed Management Article XIII of the Constitution. As a result,
and Erosion Control Project (WMECP) that Cabuatan demanded Uy Hoo to restore to
was completed as of December 31, 1988, them the lands on the ground that the sale
after which her position became functus was null and void. Uy Hoo refused. On
officio. January 1948, Cabuatan filed a petition for
annulment of the sale above-mentioned. Uy
HELD: Hoo then filed a motion to dismiss on the
A co-terminous employee is a non- ground that the complaint does not state
career civil servant, like casual and facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
emergency employees. The Court saw no action. The RTC dismissed the case and
solid reason why the latter are extended Cabuatan’s motion for reconsideration was
benefits under the Early Retirement Law but denied.
the former are not. RA 6683 expressly
extends its benefits for early retirement to HELD:
regular, temporary, casual and emergency The Constitution of the Philippines
employees. But specifically excluded from not being in force when the sale in question
the benefits are uniformed personnel of the was affected, it cannot be invoked by the
AFP including those of the PC-INP. plaintiffs as a ground for the sale set aside
Having filed for voluntary retirement or rendered null and void. Consequently,
within a reasonable period, the petitioner is plaintiffs cannot also invoke in their favor
entitled to the benefits of R.A. 6683. To the doctrine laid down in the Krivenko case.
deny her application is unreasonable, It is a well-known principle that the laws in
unjustified, and oppressive. Co-terminous or force at the time a contract is executed
project personnel, who have rendered at govern its interpretation and application.
least 2 years of continuous service should Therefore, the Civil Code should govern its
be covered by the law; otherwise, the Early validity, providing that "when both parties
Retirement Law would violate the equal are guilty, neither of them can recover what
protection clause in denying a class of he may have given by virtue of the contract,
government employees who are similarly nor enforce the performance of the
situated as those covered by said law. undertaking of the other party." Having sold
Applying the doctrine of necessary the land to an alien in violation of the
implication, every statutory grant of power, constitutional restriction, the plaintiff cannot
right or privilege is deemed to include all annul the same and recover the land, for
incidental power, right or privilege. This is both seller and buyer are guilty of such
so because the greater includes the lesser. violation.
42 Pimentel vs COMELEC offenses as an adjunct to the enforcement
101 SCRA 769 December 19, 1980 and administration of all election laws, is
Abad Santos, J. intended to enable the Commission to
effectively insure to the people the free,
FACTS: orderly and honest conduct of elections,
The herein petitioners are the failure of which would result in the
contestants while herein respondents are frustration of the true will of the people and
the contestees in Election Cases Nos. 8-10 make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred
which are pending before the CFI of right and duty of every qualified citizen to
Quirino. The contestants allege in their vote.
election protests that they were duly
certified candidates for mayor, vice-mayor, 43 Gordon vs. Veridiano II
and members of the SB of Diffun, Quirinoa 167 SCRA 5 November 8, 1988
on the elections held ont January 30, 1980 Cruz, J.
but that they were not considered such by
the Board of Canvassers, who FACTS:
consequently, did not cast votes in their Rosalinda Yambao owns two
favor and proceeded to proclaim the drugstores: San Sebastian Drug Store and
contestees as the duly elected officials of Olongapo City Drug Store. They are
Diffun. They also contend that if not for the covered by Permit No. 1954 and 1955 ser.
said error, they would have been the 1980 and licenses to operate issued by the
winners of the election. They therefore pray FDA for the same year. On March 21, 1980,
of said Court of First Instance of Quirino to a test-buy was conducted by the joint team
take the necessary actions such as to of FDA and the Philippine Constabulary at
examine the ballots and to annul the San Sebastian Drug store and was sold 200
proclamation of the contestees and to tablets of Valium, 10mg worth P410.00
declare the contestants as the duly elected without a doctor’s prescription. A report was
officials of Diffun among others. The CFI of sent to the Mayor and the Mayor’s Permit
Quirino issued an order denying the motion No. 1954 was revoked for violating RA 6425
of the contestees and denied their motion and RA 5921. Acting on the same
for reconsideration. On March 22, 1980, the investigation report, FDA Administrator
contestees filed with the Commission on Arsenio Regala directed the closure of the
Elections a petition for certiorari and drug store for three days and payment of a
prohibition with preliminary injunction P100.00 fine for violating RA 3720. After
seeking to restrain the CFI of Quirino from compliance by the owners, the closure order
enforcing its orders of March 20, 1980. The was lifted. On April 1980, Yambao, through
COMELEC issued on March 25, 1980 her counsel, wrote to the mayor’s office for
Resolution No. 9592, an order postponing reconsideration of the revocation of Mayor’s
the hearing of Election Cases Nos. 8, 9 and Permit No. 1954 which was not replied. The
10. Yambaos then filed a complaint questioning
said suspension where the judge then
HELD: issued an order directing the maintenance
The COMELEC acted with grave of the status quo with respect to the
abuse of discretion in dismissing the Olongapo City Drug Store pending
complaint on the ground “lack of sufficient resolution of issues. The petitioners wrote
evidence to establish probable cause,” the FDA to reconsider its order allowing
curiously after it had previously found resumption of the operation of San
probable cause on the basis of the same Sebastian Drug Store which was
evidence. The grant to the COMELEC, subsequently denied. A motion for
conferred by the Constitution, of the power reconsideration was also earlier filed by
to investigate and prosecute election petitioners of the status quo order.
However, the respondent judge denied the
motion and declared the revocation of Jover argues that according to the Charter
Mayor’s Permit No 1954 for San Sebastian of the City of Iloilo, his tenure of office will
Drug Store null and void. be six years and he will only be removed
only for cause provided by law. On the other
HELD: hand, Borra sets up that the office of Mayor
Gordon acted invalidly in revoking of the City is policy-determining and
Mayor's Permit No. 1954 after the FDA had confidential, hence subject for removal
authorized the resumption of operations of anytime; and that prevention of that power
vested in the President is encroachment
the San Sebastian Drug Store following the
upon his prerogative and constitutional
enforcement of the penalties imposed upon power to remove incumbents, referring to
it. By revoking the mayor's permit on the Sec. 1, Art. VI of the 1935 Constitution.
same ground for which the drug store had
already been penalized by the FDA, the HELD:
petitioner in effect reversed the decision of The Court held that Jover not having
the latter on a matter that came under its been removed in accordance with the
jurisdiction. Thus, if the FDA grants a provisions of the Revised Administrative
license upon its finding that the applicant Code, his removal from office is
drug store has complied with the unauthorized and illegal. Hence, the
requirements of the general laws and the designation of the respondent as acting
implementing administrative rules and mayor is also without authority of law. An
regulations, it is only for their violation that inferential authority to remove at pleasure
the FDA may revoke the said license. This cannot be deduced, since the existence of a
is consistent with the principle that the defined term, ipso facto, negates such
power to approve a license includes by inference, and implies a contrary
implication, even if not expressly granted, presumption, i.e. that the public officer shall
the power to revoke it. By extension, the hold office to the end of his term, subject to
power to revoke is limited by the authority to removal for cause. The President’s
the license, from which it is derived. constitutional power is merely one of
general supervision over all local
44 Jover vs. Borra governments and such supervision is to be
L-6782 July 25, 1953 exercised as may be provided by law.
Padilla, J.

FACTS:
Dominador Javer was appointed as
mayor of City of Iloilo on February 9, 1953
and confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments on March 26, 1953. On June
27, 1953 he was relieved from the office
through a message from the telegram of the
Secretary to the President and thereby
appointing his vice mayor, the respondent,
as Acting Mayor. This case will be confined
on the dispute of illegality of the removal of
the petitioner and subsequent designation
of the respondent, as agreed.

You might also like