Rendel Chan

Legal Research and Thesis Writing

PURISIMA v. PTI
G.R. No. 210251 April 17, 2017
FACTS
Pres. Benigno Aquino III signed RA 10351, the Sin Tax Reform Law on December
20, 2012. Then on December 21, 2012, the Sec. of Finance imposed tax individually on
cigarette pouches of 5’s and 10’s even if bundled in packaging combination of 20 sticks.
As a result, the PTI filed a petition before the RTC for declaratory relief with an application
for writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC favored the PTI and granted its petition. Thus,
the Sec of Finance and the CIR through the office of the Solicitor General filed an instant
petition. In the meantime, the Supreme Court issued a TRO against the PTI and RTC.
ISSUE
Whether or not the RTC erred in granting the petition to impose tax on combination
pouches of 5’s and 10’s not exceeding 20 sticks rather than taxing individually pouches
of 5’s and 10’s.
RULING
Base from the intention and clear interpretation of RA10351, tax should be
imposed on cigarette pouched by machine as packaging combination of 20 cigarette
sticks as a whole and not to individual packaging combinations on pouches of 5’s and
10’s. In addition, the Supreme Court further state that the BIR went beyond its jurisdiction
by imposing additional burden to the Tobacco Sector through issuance of its revenue
regulations. In so doing, the BIR made an amendment which was not under its
functions. With the above mention facts, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
 Republic of the Philippines Vs. Lorena Omapas Sali
G.R. No. 206023 April 3, 2017
FACTS
Lorena Omapas Sali filed a Verified Petition for Correction of Entry under Rule 108
of the Rules of Court before the RTC. In recording the facts of her birth, the personnel of
the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte, erroneously entered her first name as
“Dorothy” instead of “Lorena” and the date of birth as “June 24, 1968” instead of “April 24,
1968”. The petitioner alleged that she has been using the name it for as long as she could
remember and is known to the community in general as such. RTC granted the Petition.
However, appealed the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction on the part of RTC. The CA
denied the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the petition.
RULING
In the case at bar, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the change of Sali’s first
name, was not within the RTC’s primary jurisdiction. It was improper because the remedy
should have been administrative, filing of the petition with the local civil registrar
concerned. For failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC should have
dismissed the petition to correct Sali’s First name.
 METROBANK v. CIR
G.R. No. 182582 April 17, 2017
FACTS
On June 5, 1997, Solidbank entered into an agreement with LHC, whereby the
former extended to the latter a foreign currency denominated loan in the principal amount
of US$123,780,000.00. Pursuant to the Agreement, LHC is bound to shoulder all the
corresponding internal revenue taxes required by law to be deducted or withheld on the
said loan, as well as the filing of tax returns and remittance of the taxes withheld to the
BIR. On September 2000, Metrobank acquired Solidbank and consequently assumed the
latter’s rights and obligations. On March 2001 and October 2001, LHC paid Metrobank
the total amounts of US$ 1,538,122.17 and US$ 1,333,268.31. According to Metrobank,
it mistakenly remitted money to the BIR as well when they were inadvertently included in
its own Monthly Remittance Returns of Final Income Taxes Withheld for the months of
March 2001 and October 2001. Thus, on December 27, 2002, it filed a letter to the BIR
requesting for the refund thereof. Thereafter and in view of respondent the CIR’s inaction,
Metrobank filed its judicial claim for refund via a petition for review filed before the CTA
on September 10, 2003. In defense, the CIR averred that Metrobank must prove that
there was double payment of the tax sought to be refunded. The CTA Division also denied
Metrobank's claim for refund relative to the October 2001 tax payment for insufficiency of
evidence.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CTA En Banc correctly held that Metrobank's claim for refund
relative to its March 2001final tax had already prescribed.
RULING
In the case at bar, Section 229 of the same Code provides for the proper procedure
in order to claim for such refunds, no suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court
for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been
collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any
manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the
Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax,
penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. No such suit or proceeding shall
be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty
regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment. Wherefore, the
petition was denied.
 ASIA BREWERY v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK
G.R. No. 190432 April 25, 2017
FACTS
From September 1996 to July 1998, 10 checks and 16 demand drafts were issued
in the name of Charlie Go. In the complaint, petitioners narrate that all of the above checks
and demand drafts fell into the hands of a certain Raymond U. Keh, who falsely, willfully,
and maliciously pretending to be the payee, co-plaintiff Charlie S. Go, succeeded in
opening accounts with defendant Equitable PCI Bank in the name of Charlie Go and
thereafter deposited the said checks and demand drafts in said accounts and withdrew
the proceeds thereof to the damage and prejudice of plaintiff Asia Brewery, Inc. Raymond
Keh was allegedly charged with and convicted of theft and ordered to pay the value of
the checks, but not a single centavo was collected, because he jumped bail and left the
country while the cases were still being tried.
ISSUE
Whether or not the trial court seriously erred in dismissing the complaint for lack
of cause of action.
RULING
The Court believes that it need not delve into the issue of whether the instruments
have been delivered, because it is a matter of defense that would have to be proven
during trial on the merits. The court also held that if the allegations in a complaint furnish
sufficient basis on which the suit may be maintained, the complaint should not be
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be raised by the defendants. Wherefore
the petition is granted.
 UY vs ESTATE OF VIPA FERNANDEZ
GR No. 200612 April 5, 2017
FACTS
Vipa Lahaylahay is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Jaro, Iloilo
City. Vipa and her husband Levi Lahaylahay have two children, Grace Joy and Jill
Frances. In 1990, a contract of lease was executed between Vipa and Rafael Uy over the
subject property and the improvements thereon to which Rafael bound himself to pay the
amount of P 3,000 per month with provision for a10% every year thereafter. On 1995,
Vipa died leaving no will or testament whatsoever, Grace Joy became the de facto
administrator of the estate of Vipa. In 1998, Rafael stopped paying the monthly rents.
Consequently, the estate of Vipa filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with MTCC
against Rafael. Accordingly, at the time of the filing of the complaint, unpaid rents
amounted to P271,150.00. MTCC rendered a decision ordering Rafael to vacate the
premises and to pay the amount of unpaid rents with 12% interest per annum. On appeal,
RTC reversed the decision of MTCC and dismiss the complaint for unlawful detainer.
According to the RTC, Grace was the plaintiff not the estate and it had failed to the bring
the dispute to the barangay conciliation; that the property is part of conjugal property and
after Vipa’s death the conjugal partnership was terminated. Levi sold his property to
Rafael, thus making him co-owner of the property. Estate filed a petition for review to CA
and reinstated the decision of MTCC.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s decision.
RULING
The petition is partly granted. The Estate of Vipa is a juridical entity that has a
personality, separate and distinct from that of Grace Joy. Thus, there is no necessity to
bring the dispute to the barangay conciliation prior to filing of the complaint for unlawful
detainer with MTCC. On the issue of ownership of Rafael, Levi had the right to freely
dispose of his undivided interest. Thus, the sale by Levi of his one-half undivided share
in the subject property was not necessarily void, for his right as a co-owner thereof was
effectively transferred, making the buyer Rafael, a co-owner of the subject property.
Accordingly, Rafael could no longer be directed to vacate the subject property.
Nevertheless, Rafael is still bound to pay unpaid rentals from 1998 to 2003.